More Twitterbanning
-
Ok I’ll take you all to task.
This is twitters statement.
“ We may apply labels to tweets that contain, for example… false or misleading claims that people who have received the vaccine can spread or shed the virus (or symptoms, or immunity) to unvaccinated people.”
Now while it’s possible their wording is not accurate and may be misconstrued to imply that vaccinated people can not pass on virus, what Twitter is referring to is the ridiculous fake news that standing next to a vaccinated person endangers unvaxxed people nearby , as has been circulating in various wacko sites.
For example the school in Florida.
Now it’s obvious, at least to me, that this is twitters intent.
Choosing to believe otherwise, (the stench of the left?) is disingenuous.
But yes the wording could have been more clear.
-
Ok I’ll take you all to task.
This is twitters statement.
“ We may apply labels to tweets that contain, for example… false or misleading claims that people who have received the vaccine can spread or shed the virus (or symptoms, or immunity) to unvaccinated people.”
Now while it’s possible their wording is not accurate and may be misconstrued to imply that vaccinated people can not pass on virus, what Twitter is referring to is the ridiculous fake news that standing next to a vaccinated person endangers unvaxxed people nearby , as has been circulating in various wacko sites.
For example the school in Florida.
Now it’s obvious, at least to me, that this is twitters intent.
Choosing to believe otherwise, (the stench of the left?) is disingenuous.
But yes the wording could have been more clear.
@bachophile said in More Twitterbanning:
Ok I’ll take you all to task.
This is twitters statement.
“ We may apply labels to tweets that contain, for example… false or misleading claims that people who have received the vaccine can spread or shed the virus (or symptoms, or immunity) to unvaccinated people.”
Now while it’s possible their wording is not accurate and may be misconstrued to imply that vaccinated people can not pass on virus, what Twitter is referring to is the ridiculous fake news that standing next to a vaccinated person endangers unvaxxed people nearby , as has been circulating in various wacko sites.
For example the school in Florida.
Now it’s obvious, at least to me, that this is twitters intent.
Choosing to believe otherwise, (the stench of the left?) is disingenuous.
Well, mea culpa. Based on the info presented in this thread I interpreted it incorrectly. I am sorry. But the left still needs to bathe more often, that's just basic hygiene. Hippies.
-
Mediaite complains about Twitter, using Twitter.
Presumably they need to do this because nobody goes to their website
-
Ok I’ll take you all to task.
This is twitters statement.
“ We may apply labels to tweets that contain, for example… false or misleading claims that people who have received the vaccine can spread or shed the virus (or symptoms, or immunity) to unvaccinated people.”
Now while it’s possible their wording is not accurate and may be misconstrued to imply that vaccinated people can not pass on virus, what Twitter is referring to is the ridiculous fake news that standing next to a vaccinated person endangers unvaxxed people nearby , as has been circulating in various wacko sites.
For example the school in Florida.
Now it’s obvious, at least to me, that this is twitters intent.
Choosing to believe otherwise, (the stench of the left?) is disingenuous.
But yes the wording could have been more clear.
@bachophile said in More Twitterbanning:
“ We may apply labels to tweets that contain, for example… false or misleading claims that people who have received the vaccine can spread or shed the virus (or symptoms, or immunity) to unvaccinated people.”
Now while it’s possible their wording is not accurate and may be misconstrued to imply that vaccinated people can not pass on virus, what Twitter is referring to is the ridiculous fake news that standing next to a vaccinated person endangers unvaxxed people nearby , as has been circulating in various wacko sites.Here's the screenshot of what Twitter says, which you quoted.
I don't see it as ambiguous at all.
They clearly state that it is a false claim that vaccinated people can spread the virus.
You're reading what you think is Twitter's intent into what they actually said. If i say vaccinated people can spread the virus, I will be banned.
Or am I missing something in the 3-D chess of Twitter's algorithms?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
I suspect the germ of the idea is as bach claims, but there's no way anybody could have inferred that from Twitter's statement alone. It is badly written, at least. And if any of the indoctrinated imbeciles working in the twitter moderation arbitration department were to read those rules, they would apply them as written. These are not thoughtful people, they are indoctrinated leftist idiots who do as they are told. As for the algorithm that does first-pass moderation, who knows what it thinks. But if the people at Twitter write English that poorly, they probably write code poorly as well.
-
I suspect the germ of the idea is as bach claims, but there's no way anybody could have inferred that from Twitter's statement alone. It is badly written, at least. And if any of the indoctrinated imbeciles working in the twitter moderation arbitration department were to read those rules, they would apply them as written. These are not thoughtful people, they are indoctrinated leftist idiots who do as they are told. As for the algorithm that does first-pass moderation, who knows what it thinks. But if the people at Twitter write English that poorly, they probably write code poorly as well.
-
@bachophile said in More Twitterbanning:
“ We may apply labels to tweets that contain, for example… false or misleading claims that people who have received the vaccine can spread or shed the virus (or symptoms, or immunity) to unvaccinated people.”
Now while it’s possible their wording is not accurate and may be misconstrued to imply that vaccinated people can not pass on virus, what Twitter is referring to is the ridiculous fake news that standing next to a vaccinated person endangers unvaxxed people nearby , as has been circulating in various wacko sites.Here's the screenshot of what Twitter says, which you quoted.
I don't see it as ambiguous at all.
They clearly state that it is a false claim that vaccinated people can spread the virus.
You're reading what you think is Twitter's intent into what they actually said. If i say vaccinated people can spread the virus, I will be banned.
Or am I missing something in the 3-D chess of Twitter's algorithms?
It seems to be they meant exactly what I said
And they did not say banned. They said they will mark those tweets as containing false information.
Small difference
-
It seems to be they meant exactly what I said
And they did not say banned. They said they will mark those tweets as containing false information.
Small difference
@bachophile said in More Twitterbanning:
They said they will mark those tweets as containing false information.
My bad.
So, they will mark the CDC's tweets as false information.
I can't wait.
-
@bachophile said in More Twitterbanning:
They said they will mark those tweets as containing false information.
My bad.
So, they will mark the CDC's tweets as false information.
I can't wait.
-
@george-k said in More Twitterbanning:
Any chance we can find the actual article? Is it on Quillette?
