Twitter down the toilet.

Oh goodie gumdrops!

Hardly. It's just so difficult to determine what's considered "misinformation" around Covid-19.

The virus might have leaked from a lab? That was misinformation, until it wasn't.

That masks are not effective? Misinformation. Even though there was not a single large study which showed a statistically significant benefit.

Vaccines aren't as safe as we've been led to believe? Misinformation. This is a really tough one, as I see LOTS of anecdotal reports of people damaged by these. Facebook have even taken down support groups for people who have been vaccine damaged. They certainly don't seem to be even nearly as effective as we were first promised, and that seems to wear off after a few months.

So, it's better to just open it up and let people have their opinions. You can agree or disagree.

I think Twitter is full of a great deal of toxic nonsense, but I also feel like it's still a hugely important platform. Hardly down the toilet because they are allowing people to say what they want to, and are legally allowed to.

What will be really interesting is when Elon releases the details of what suppression / censorship / shadow banning has been regularly going on there.

My point is, who gets to decide what is and what is not misinformation? And if "the authorities" get it wrong as often as they have in the last couple of years, why should we rely on them as the single source of truth?

Agree (and from the downvotes it's clear that the fans of censorship on here are still keen on censoring things which don't fit the narrative). 'Misinformation' seems to mean anything which is counter to the approved government narraive at that particular time.

For the fans of the assorted NPIs, find graphs of case rates in a few countries (it really doesn't matter which ones) and see if you can spot whether and when particular NPIs were imposed in each one - because if they are effective, they would have an impact on case numbers (at least, a slowing of any increase), right?

And as regards the "vaccines" see the yellow card and VAERS data, and similar in other countries, and bear in mind that these are reckoned to capture no more than 10% of the actual number of adverse reactions for any medicaton.

Exactly this.

I do wonder if the downvotes are people who have either a) bought into the latest narrative and are true believers, and therefore triggered by anyone who is ant-mask. or b) people who feel they have been conned, but aren't ready to admit it, even to themselves.

Your point about NPIs. You'd think Scotland would have seen a dramatic (or even a slight) difference in their case rates, when they kept masking for many months after England. Same with North/South Dakota. The graphs for each side are virtually identical, once you take population into account. However some Americans still seem to love 'em. Good Morning America, I'm collecting Down Votes below. Yee haw.

Remember when Fauci went on US TV and said the vaxx stops transmission? And Rachel Maddow saying that once the virus reaches a vaxxed person it stops completely. Both completely false statements but taken as gospel. And maybe the spread would have been different if people had taken more care rather than acting in the belief that being vaxxed made them invincible.

Down voting isn't censorship. It is just other Commentards saying they disagree with what you've written. Reporting your post as abuse and getting it pulled would be censorship.

"Reporting your post as abuse and getting it pulled would be censorship."

The specific post above would probably not be pulled if reported as being abusive, as it may be contentious, but is not (AFAIK) defamatory or grossly offensive. But generally, it depends on what the post said.

Reporting a post which described an identifiable and prominent person as a pedophile or having committed a specific criminal offence, without evidence or a conviction, would be responsible as libel is illegal in the UK, and I doubt that the Register's coffers could survive the sort of damages that could be awarded. Remember that the BBC paid considerable damages to Sir Cliff Richard just for covering a police raid on one of his homes (nothing untoward was found btw). Sir David Steele also received damages from a news organisation that started a false rumour he'd been 'naughty', and Sir Elton John reportedly got £1 million from a UK tabloid newspaper for a front page article claiming he had engaged in unacceptable acts with a minor. (I believe that much of these damages went to charities.). I don't think that counts as aggressive censorship, but accepting that telling offensive lies is not what this site is about.

"So, it's better to just open it up and let people have their opinions. You can agree or disagree."

The problem is SO many people present their opinions, hypothesis, conjectures, conspiracies, et cetera as ABSOLUTE GOSPEL TRUTH FACTS and will flame-war you SO hard if you disagree AT ALL about any part of it. While this can go both ways for any given topic, it does tend to lean more to one side with regards to anything related COVID-19 and the US elections of 2020 and their aftermath. Thus, many folks prefer that the companies deal with the extremes (e.g.: moderation) rather than doing the hard thing and putting up with the craziness themselves.

(But that's just my opinion, and although I prefer well-reasoned rebuttal you may feel free to disagree via downvotes.)

I agree it's not ideal. Hence an upvote. I just don't think the answer is to censor.

I see some horrible views on Twitter and I just block or mute those people. Also, I don't tend to follow nasty people, so I just don't see their stuff as much. Or if I do, I just roll my eyes and scroll on.

MORE discourse is the answer, not suppression or moderation. Of course there are some things that DO need moderation, but not just opinions which are WrongThink against the current narrative.

On a person-to-person level, in the absence of moderation/censorship, usual attempts at "more discourse" that I have seen [caveat: anecdotal evidence!] are often met with ad hominem insults and threats. Presenting evidence behind alternate opinions is often met with "that evidence is false/fake" without proof or counterevidence. This is not "discourse" and is as harmful and unproductive as moderation/censorship, if not more so.

The real solution is for everyone to act with more kindness/grace, with everyone, all the time, no matter the medium. It saddens me greatly that many in the US have embraced a Christian Nationalism that acts counter to grace despite the clear Biblical teachings of Christ himself and his early followers that show that the Christian Church at Large should be the leading the world in grace and kindness. If you need more discussion, try the podcast "Truth Over Tribe" -- CN was discussed in a recent episode.

The ad hominem attacks around here are quite good fun. Commentards trying to be edgy but really just showing they are rather silly.

It does have a slightly worrying side as reacting to information that is counter to your world view with such vitriol hints at a serious level of indoctrination and an almost cult like devotion to their personal ideology. 'I am right, you are wrong, f-you!!1' The outbursts are the internet version of a childs tantrum. And we are seeing that spill into real life and people have died as a result. And before anyone jumps in with name calling this is not limited to a specific group, it has happened with pretty much all the political ideologies and through direct and indirect means.

" I just block or mute those people" - isn't that a form of censorship? You're refusing to read what these people are saying?

Censorship is stopping others from hearing/reading stuff, not ignoring it yourself.

you have a right to an opinion, but you don't have the right to force anyone to hear it.

Upvoted because I generally agree with your sentiment, but one of the worst problems of claimed 'cancel culture' is the people who claim they are being denied a platform never seems to answer questions. I reckon the right to free speech should be balanced by a responsibility to listen to comments and answer polite questions. So although I 'have a right' to state my opinion, I have an obligation to read and consider comments, otherwise I'd just be a troll.

Yeah, I can see why you think that, but it's subtly different.

Those people are free to say what they want, and I'm also free not to listen to them if I don't want to. I don't have to listen to everything that everyone says, I just don't have time for that.

It's a similar situation in the newspapers, people are free to have an opinion piece if the paper will publish it, but that doesn't mean I have to buy that paper or to read it. I have chosen to NEVER again read The Guardian (except the Bike Blog, which I like), because their views are way to extreme for my taste and I feel that they are peddling misinformation and gross exaggeration. But they are free to publish that.

The problem is that "more discourse" just results in more bots and troll accounts drowning out the sensible discourse.

https://twitter.com/DaveAtherton20/status/1597521794969505794

"Oncologist Dr Adnan Al-Daini

@respect65

says Covid boosters help stable cancer rapidly progress.

Oncologist Prof Angus Dalgleish, agrees & adds: "The link with clots, myocarditis, heart attacks & strokes is now well accepted"

Cc

@DrSarahJarvis

@TalkTV"

Here's one which might be flagged up as misinformation. Does that seem OK? shouldn't it be allowed to look into such questions?

What's causing all the excess deaths we're seeing right now (non Covid)?

https://trusttheevidence.substack.com/p/excess-deaths-a-quick-update-yet

Is it vaccines? Is it lockdown hangover? Cancer? Obesity? Something else?

I'd really like to know, but the authorities don't seem in the least interested and offer no explanation + most of the press don't seem to care either. I'm not seeing daily press briefings for this.

I'm just giving an example of something that would probably get flagged as misinformation, but is actually something that warrants further investigation. Why are no journalists picking this up?

"Oncologist Dr Adnan Al-Daini"

[1]Dr Adnan Al-Daini (PhD Birmingham University, UK) is a retired university engineering lecturer.

That starts well...

== Bring us Dabbsy back! ==

[1] https://independentaustralia.net/profile-on/adnan-al-daini,229

Great - two twitter links. Referencing two individuals. Adnan Al-Daini. Retired University lecturer in Engineering. Not an Oncologist. Professor Angus Dalgleish. A proper oncologist. One specialising in vaccines. What has he said about vaccines. Let's look for stuff under his own byline, not some random twit/you tube account's hearsay. He has recently written to the BMJ, expressing the opinion that the risk benefit of 4th booster shots isn't there any more with Omicron. The quote t'he link with clots, myocarditis, heart attacks & strokes is now well accepted' appears to actually conflate two statements. 'We have heard anecdotal reports of an increase in myocarditis and myocardial infarction and of deaths of young adults within 48 hours of receiving the booster' and '. It is generally accepted that the Omicron is more contagious but considerably less harmful on an individual basis'

Is it time to block COVID tin foil hattery on The Register? It appears so.

If you can't tell the difference between an opinion and a fact, try holding the opinion that falling off a building won't hurt you, and then try arguing with the fact of the ground coming up to meet you.

The fact is that the internet is awash with misinformation and just because you can make your opinion widely heard, and voice it convincingly, doesn't make it a fact. If you don't have the skills to critically evaluate sources of information for their veracity, and spot obvious bullshit, maybe you should not be repeating everything you hear as if it is fact, and the internet will become just that tiny little bit less of a cess-pit.

tl;dr: If you don't know what you are talking about, please shut up.

Twitter has been been down the toilet for a long time swirling in shit. Now Musk has pulled the chain. How dare Apple not want to jump in after Twitter.

According to Elon, that's not misinformation but free speech

All he really wants is fee speech (as El Reg put it a while back).

just joking, of course, he's sinking the boat

The proposed new Government's UK policy document is basically saying "if a statement is not illegal then it's free speech and is subject to site imposed policies".

If Twitter doesn't have a policy for take down of legal material it would actually conform to that Act (if enforced as written) in the easiest and cheapest way ...

It's more interesting that if a social media site (whatever one of those is defined as) actually has its own policy document for postings and doesn't enforce it to the letter, whether or not a complaint is received, then the company may potentially be criminally liable under the Act when something completely legal but in contravention of the company's own imposed restrictions is said.

The new/old Twitter policy may not be to everyone's taste at the moment but it may actually be a signal of the way others will go in the UK to reduce future company liability ... no boundaries, no liability.

it's the UK government who decides what is illegal. What if tomorrow the government will decide to back the flat-Earth theory and make illegal any discussion on the actual form of our planet ? Wouldn't it be a gross misinformation to claim Earth is not flat ?

The country where I was born and spent the first half of my life had all the attributes of a fully functional democracy, however it was the communist party that was making the rules and decide what is illegal and what is not.

Besides, I personally find it weird that someone posting on the Internet about Christ resurrection does not spread misinformation while if someone dares to post an opinion about COVID that is contrary to government propa... sorry! line, it is automatically flagged as misinformation.

Something is wrong here!

Render unto Caesar. I.e.. listen to doctor's about health, priests about flying spaghetti monsters, etc.

As long as we live in society we need some rules. Governments make rules. If they make dumb rules your choice is to vote them out, emigrate or lead a successful coup. But, and it's a big but, just because you don't like a rule doesn't mean that the community as a whole doesn't like the rule, and maybe it's not the government that are being dumb?

She'd feel right at home with Twitter's latest changes:

https://www.theregister.com/2016/03/24/microsoft_ai_goes_troll/

https://www.theregister.com/2016/03/30/microsofts_tay_ai_chatbot_brief_return/

What do you do with "harmful" information that might also be legal? For example, the much-publicised case of a teenager being pushed suggested post after suggested post regarding "how to kill one's self".

Now, I know that case was a "Zuck" rather than a "Musk" but the problem still holds true.

Moderating by not-moderating is passing the buck for responsible reading entirely to the user, which I think we can all agree there are plenty of clueless users out there. A cursory look at Fail videos or similar proves that.

The "right sort" of censorship over free speech would be my preference, however, good luck algorithming that. It's rather easier to do with 3 TV channels and a dozen newspapers....

Better yet, we should sack off using such crappy platforms. (Noting that some forms of social media are now the only contact details I have for certain people - though that could be fixed).

By censoring a message you remove the possibility of a debate to establish the truth. This is bad for science.

Yes, there are a lot of weirdos and downright idiots who speak all kind of nonsense but many scientists, academics, physicians and journalists have been conveniently added to the same bunch because they didn't toed the government line. Now I can't tell if those qualified (to me at least) people were right or wrong because they were suppressed both professionally and socially, together with their message.

However, what is worrying me is the fact that this happened simultaneously in many countries with different cultures and health care systems. I've noticed the anti-anti-vax people all over the world are following the exact same script, using the same arguments and governments are using the same arsenal of heavy-handed repressive measures.

I know, I know, it's all for our own good.

If I was to post something that is libellous, and it was removed, would that be censorship?

In what sense would it be a valid debate to discuss whether or not there is veracity in such a claim as, for instance, "Annoymous Coward has sex with dogs"?

There is a clear line between removal of false or defamatory claims, and censorship of legitimate debate. To claim otherwise is to draw a false equivalence and is deeply disingenuous.

Laughs - I've noticed the anti-anti-anti-vax people all over the world are following the exact same script, but instead of being one written by scientists based on data, their scripts were written by a failed pizza delivery person from their parent's basement.

Let Social Media be held to the same libel standards as all other publishers. Then it will either self-regulate or pay those it damages.

It's not that easy. This will force them to play safe and remove anything that might get them into trouble. Remember that photograph taken during the Vietnam war and showing a naked girl running from incendiary bombs ? Is it child porn, a message against the horrors of war or a journalistic masterpiece ?

Either they are "common carriers" and the people posting stuff are liable for the content, or they are "curators", and if they show someone something that is not true, for example, by "promoting" a post algorithmically that they might not have otherwise chose to see, they are liable for doing so.

Personally, I think the latter should apply as soon as the likes of Facebook and Twitter start doing the "curating" and "sponsored posts" stuff. They started doing this some time ago. If one of my friends posts some utter nonsense, they are liable for its truthfulness, but if an advert from Vote Leave touting false information about all of Turkey planning on moving to the UK is promoted onto my feed during a national referendum campaign, based on profiling of what I might be liable to believe, then the company putting it in my face is responsible.

There's an awful lot of money sloshing about to prevent any comeuppances for the latter from happening though, more's the pity, because social media networks should have already been stomped into the ground for promoting misinformation. IMHO, they are responsible for moderating the content of such, and should be liable for its truthfulness.

All the conspirationists and other nuts celebrate worldwide.

This [1]link will become more vital than ever.

== Bring us Dabbsy back! ==

[1] https://www.factcheck.org/a-guide-to-our-coronavirus-coverage/

...The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) noted in its announcement of emergency use authorization of the vaccine that there was not yet evidence that it prevented transmission of the virus from person to person.

It's a public document so you can find it yourself

or this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A2ZkW8pUWg (Pfizer representative full hearing in from of the COVID EP comission)

Now I'm confused, who is a conspirationist and who is not ? If Dabbsy can help us, bring him on!

So what is the Covid misinformation? It has changed so much and was gotten so wrong by those making the rules. First masks don’t help, then they do. Then it wasn’t released in a lab accident. Now it probably was. Then it won’t spread if you get the vaccine, now the vaccine doesn’t prevent spread.

All of these were official lines from the CDC that were later debunked by the supposed misinformation that was propagated online. The problem is official sources can lie just like unofficial sources. The only way to eventually find the truth on complicated topics is to allow ideas to compete. While it may be messy, it’s necessary. Otherwise we will become like China and Russia holding up blank pieces of papers protesting idiotic policies because there is no opposing viewpoint allowed. I will take the bad that comes with free speech over their horrible system, where a couple of leaders decide on wars and horrible policies.

To give just one of many examples linked to the COVID pandemic. Initially, the theory that the virus originated from a lab in Wuhan was considered misinformation and people were kicked off twitter for discussing it. Later on, as more evidence emerged, it became and remains a credible explanation.

Stifling debate during a rapidly evolving situation like a pandemic is criminal, IMO.

It's tricky, though, because mixed in with legitimate debate was an awful lot of dangerous bullshit, like claims that injecting bleach into yourself would protect you, or claims that Bill Gates is injecting you with 5G microchips to reinforce the mind-control rays, so that they can get through your tin-foil helmet.

My guess is after the last two pogroms and even firing people who signed up to be "hardcore" Twitler just doesn't have the people left to handle this sort of thing. What few content moderators are left are devoted to higher priority things, like getting rid of anyone who says anything bad about Twitler, or people who appear to have evidence of a massive data breach at Twitter and were about to expose it to the world.

...for all the popcorn I'm going to need, watching this dumpster fire?