It is becoming a drearily familiar experience for me to receive emails from social media platforms informing me that my content has been removed for violating “community guidelines” prohibiting the dissemination of “dangerous or misleading information.” Usually, this is shorthand for any piece of evidence or analysis contradicting an official statement by a public health authority - to be precise, a specific public health authority or cluster of authorities that the platform in question has decided to treat as the Gospel of Science, very often the FDA, the CDC, or the WHO.
I am still locked out of my account for repeat violations of the same policy of contradicting "global health authorities". I don't even know who specifically these authorities are that I am not supposed to contradict! WHO? CDC/FDA? EMA? Gates? Or actual scientists?
Yes, it ends up very much like a form of private despotism, in which one never quite knows how the rule will be applied. At least on Substack the company goes out of its way to favour freedom of speech. That makes for a stable user experience and a free exchange of ideas.
Time to LinkOut. I did. LinkedIn finally got useful and interesting during the "pandemic" after 12 years being listed, and then the warnings and scoldings and censorship. And this tends to be a serious group of professionals who were reaching out to solve a problem. You know actually trying to Link In.
Check in with Steve Kirsch who is pondering suing Twitter. Maybe they both should be sued simultaneously? The time is right. Elon Musk opened a few cans of worms to get the process started.
Censorship is equivalent to an 8-year-old brat shouting "If you don't let me win, I'm taking my ball and going home!" Objective adults with defensible opinions refuse to "play ball with" such children.
There is no such thing as "settled science" or "scientific consensus". No serious scientist uses such laughable terminology.
Science welcomes vigorous, objective debate of ideas and data. Test your audience with the words: "Are you open to the possibility that (a seemingly outrageous claim) might be true?". If they answer with "No, that cannot possibly be true", you know that they are not able to open their mind and abandon their "confirmation bias".
All learning ceases when so-called adults refuse to consider ... the possibility ... that they are wrong.
I am still locked out of my account for repeat violations of the same policy of contradicting "global health authorities". I don't even know who specifically these authorities are that I am not supposed to contradict! WHO? CDC/FDA? EMA? Gates? Or actual scientists?
I've had very similar experiences, I'm sorry to say. They're hopelessly inconsistent too, one never knows where they stand.
Yes, it ends up very much like a form of private despotism, in which one never quite knows how the rule will be applied. At least on Substack the company goes out of its way to favour freedom of speech. That makes for a stable user experience and a free exchange of ideas.
Linkedin is owned by the same people that brought us patents #10130701b2 and Wo2020060606A1.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRhgBPVJ/?k=1
Time to LinkOut. I did. LinkedIn finally got useful and interesting during the "pandemic" after 12 years being listed, and then the warnings and scoldings and censorship. And this tends to be a serious group of professionals who were reaching out to solve a problem. You know actually trying to Link In.
Check in with Steve Kirsch who is pondering suing Twitter. Maybe they both should be sued simultaneously? The time is right. Elon Musk opened a few cans of worms to get the process started.
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/should-i-sue-twitter-for-breach-of?r=c8vqx&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
It would be great if Twitter was inundated with messy lawsuits, and could be quite educational for the general public as well.
I think that might possibly happen, especially after Alex B won his case. Steve K is now considering taking them to court
Censorship is equivalent to an 8-year-old brat shouting "If you don't let me win, I'm taking my ball and going home!" Objective adults with defensible opinions refuse to "play ball with" such children.
There is no such thing as "settled science" or "scientific consensus". No serious scientist uses such laughable terminology.
Science welcomes vigorous, objective debate of ideas and data. Test your audience with the words: "Are you open to the possibility that (a seemingly outrageous claim) might be true?". If they answer with "No, that cannot possibly be true", you know that they are not able to open their mind and abandon their "confirmation bias".
All learning ceases when so-called adults refuse to consider ... the possibility ... that they are wrong.