Another Trump tweet breaks the rules

The idea that over 100,000 people per year are dying from the flu and the idea that the seasonal flu is more deadly to some populations than COVID is. You probably should have just asked "What's true"?

 

The hatred for private property and ACTUAL free speech continues. Twitter doesn't use public "airways." It isn't radio. Yes, platforms such as Twitter are different from radio.

 

Given that COVID is 30 times deadlier than the seasonal flu I’d say it would be irresponsible not to acknowledge the clear differences between the two. Add in the fact that we have no means to vaccinate the general public against infection it stops being irresponsible and stats being dangerous. Again from the party of “It is what it is.” I’m not surprised you would disregard the deaths of thousands of your fellow citizens.

If you want to discuss Obama you should make a thread about it. You’re currently getting off topic.

 

Would it surprise you to learn up until 10 years ago the CDC reported the same number of influenza deaths each year? The CDC is almost always far behind the current research. It’s a bureaucracy.

We have known for many years heart attack and stoke are often induced by influenza infections. It’s one reason the CDC adopted the current method of estimating flu deaths ten years ago.

However, in the last couple years we’ve discovered influenza induced cardiovascular related deaths are much more prevalent than previously believed. There is a lot of information available, but here’s a taste.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1702090?query=featured_home

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC387426/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190130075757.htm

Unlike Twitter, my statements are based on science.

 

They are at the level of being a utility. The same way the phone company shouldn't interrupt a conference call to insert their own views, they need to leave Trumps tweets alone. Did they add disclaimers to tweets calling for shut downs?

 

Thanks I’ll read up on those when I have time. For sake of moving the conversation along though. Can you cite, with a searchable quote, specifically where that 90,000 deaths per year came from? Appreciate it.

 

I guess if you can point me to the journal that prints submissions it claims are not correct in substance or methodology and labels the publication as misinformation I’ll reconsider. I’m not interested in diversion from my original question.

 

Without legislation dictating such Twitter’s status as a utility is nothing more than opinion.
Don’t know, like I said I only use Twitter to check out Trump’s rants to satisfy morbid curiosity. What should those disclaimers say?

 

You are misinformed.

 

Fair. Guess submission to a scientific journal and making a tweet aren’t terribly comparable to begin with.

 

By all means inform us.

 

Then share any "information" that contradicts what I've said. Are there really still fringe conspiracy theorists who think this isn't deadlier than the flu? Really?

 

These things happen all the time, they are called retractions. Usually it happens when someone else finds out that the data are not reproducible, or incorrect, or data have been fudged. In the last case, this often leads to a ban for the particular author to publish in the respective journal.

 

If the data had been shown by someone else to be falsified, then yes, it would be fair for the journal to label it as such.

 

I'm a Trump fan but I'll give you this one. That 100k number is not accurate. He really needs to hire someone to fact check his tweets before he fires them off. Imagine reading that tweet like 3 days after someone you know died from covid. Its in poor taste. This guy seriously needs a twitter admin assistant or something!

 

Yes that is only my opinion. I strongly oppose those with power interfering in my life. If they are not adding disclaimers to tweets calling for mom n pop businesses to close their doors so people can crowd WalMart to buy the same item, they are is a position of having way too much political power.

I appreciate the conversation and understand your position.

 

Sure. It’s one of the findings from the second link I’ve provided. As that link is based on previous research, accounting for 2019/2020 findings that show more cardiovascular effects than pre 2004 research, the 90,000 is quite conservative.

 

Absolutely not. Another strawman. No journal knowingly prints misinformation.

 

Let’s stick to the questions I asked.

 

Trump is correct. And I’m not a Trump fan.

 

Honestly I agree with much of your opinion here. But it is what it is until it’s something else.

I appreciate the conversation as well.

 

Didn't read whole thread. Don't buy into their blithe "private company" deflections. The law is and will change fairly rapidly in this area IMO, in several key ways. We live in a mixed economy that is rife with regulation, for good or ill, mostly ill. That so many of our industries are heavily regulated while social media is unscathed is almost certainly subject to change sooner rather than later. Social media companies should not be allowed to defraud, materially lie to, mislead the public, regardless of politics.

1. States will begin to apply their consumer fraud statutes to everything from "paid" online reviews to larger social media platforms that derive $$ from the content -they solicit- on their platform without disclosing things like political or other bias, let alone condoned falsehood. These changes should hold up under scrutiny, stay tuned.
2. States and other advocates will begin questioning and challenging NYT v Sullivan "press" protections as applied to large media corporations that far exceed what was every intended by "the press." Posting defamatory falsehoods against political, business or other opposition will likely not be protected to the degree it has for 50 years. NYT v Sullivan, like much jurisprudence that people take for granted, is not "old settled law," and is not even 50 years old.
3. The success of the Nick Sandmann cases, the resistance to typical "press" defense measures, so far signal that we are moving past the "winkwinknudge" 50 billion multimedia conglomerate and all its arms as "the press." This is why big media is so very LW, it is in their BUSINESS INTEREST to be so, they are terrified of the $$ impact on their continuing to push LW politics as a whitewash over anti small business, anti competitive practices.

What better way for gigantic public Complex crony companies to steal market share from the 30,000,000 or so small businesses of the country than to shut them down via a public health hoax? Just pay for government to do the dirty work and conduct and advocate societal and business "purity tests" using propaganda? It is astounding that such a large % of the public can be tricked into believing that this is a consequence of "social activism" or being "woke," supporting BLM, etc. It's all about $$.

To the topic? No need to comment, it's absurd on its face. Trump broke no legitimate rules, simple censorship.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I’d be interested in further research on the matter.

Given those findings I think it’s fair to suggest that COVID related deaths are and will be undercounted by a similar margin. May be a long time before we know.

Given that, I believe the point of my opening post stands.

 

The question is twofold:

1) Does twitter have the right to delete tweets they deem misinformation, or label them as such? The answer is: Yes, they do. It is their site, they can can control what is published on their site. If government would tell twitter to remove the post that would be a different story, and it would be censorship.

2) Was Trump's tweet factually correct? No, it was not. Covid is not far less lethal in most populations than the seasonal flu. If it were less lethal, it wouldn't have been identified by the now famous doctor in China as a new disease in the first place. All current statistics of the fatality rate places it at about 3% (in my county it is actually closer to 6%). Even IF the number of cases were double than the ones confirmed, assuming asymptomatic cases, this would still place the fatality rate at 1.5 % or 15 times higher than that of the seasonal flu.

 

All of that is useless if you sign to their TOS. What you believe will be is immaterial to what is.