Official Twitter Thread (5 Viewers)

[IvanKaramazov]

I have yet to run into a particular COVID topic where the trial/study data was not publicly available. There were some that you had to pay for, but they are mostly (all?) out there. There is nothing being "hidden" when it comes to the vaccines or their contents that I am aware of. People want to piss and moan that their third party sources or SOME third party source isn't giving them complete information. Here's a thought, stop using those sources and go directly to the people doing the work next time?

When people like me did that, we were criticized for "doing our own research." By people on this forum, personally. You weren't here for that because you're like 23 or something. But there's a 1000+ page thread here, and another one in the PSF you can wade through if you'd like.

Actually, you should invest some time in going through those. I was firmly in the pro-vaccine camp, and I still am. Go and take a look at how people reacted to folks like me actually looking at original research. Take a good hard look.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I have yet to run into a particular COVID topic where the trial/study data was not publicly available. There were some that you had to pay for, but they are mostly (all?) out there. There is nothing being "hidden" when it comes to the vaccines or their contents that I am aware of. People want to piss and moan that their third party sources or SOME third party source isn't giving them complete information. Here's a thought, stop using those sources and go directly to the people doing the work next time?

When people like me did that, we were criticized for "doing our own research." By people on this forum, personally. You weren't here for that because you're like 23 or something. But there's a 1000+ page thread here, and another one in the PSF you can wade through if you'd like.

Actually, you should invest some time in going through those. I was firmly in the pro-vaccine camp, and I still am. Go and take a look at how people reacted to folks like me actually looking at original research. Take a good hard look.

I was part of that thread. I wasn't here all the time, but I followed. I don't remember people being criticized for going directly to the peer reviewed studies/data. If that happened, the people criticizing are morons. That's how it should be done. I do remember people who went with fringe studies not reviewed or validated over the others being mocked, and they should be IMO. I am pretty proud of the work I did on the subject and it was cool to be published with my mom on a couple things that have been cited here before.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I also remember the arguments about "made in a lab" those were some of the dumbest and I couldn't really believe those discussions were allowed much less happening.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I also remember the arguments about "made in a lab" those were some of the dumbest and I couldn't really believe those discussions were allowed much less happening.

I never once argued that POV.

 

[uwillbsoon]

So I'm reading the testimony I think Zuck is referring to. It was a meme that basically says there will be a class action lawsuit in ten years for those who took the vaccine. The administration wanted it deamplified (it was the #3 vaccine content at the time). Facebook wouldn't because it was satire. Which is fine.

But the Facebook response was "it's humorous and arguably true"

I'm not sure how that's remotely "arguably true."

That's so far the only example I can find of something that Facebook thought was true that they were asked to deamplify.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I also remember the arguments about "made in a lab" those were some of the dumbest and I couldn't really believe those discussions were allowed much less happening.

I never once argued that POV.

Good

It was probably THE dumbest argument/theory going in the beginning. I remember going into the lab and us discussing those absurdity daily. Just under that one was the one where people were using that VAERS system as evidence of anything.

 

[Ilov80s]

Just two points, it's highly ironic to me that X has been far worse as a media purveyor of info than the local new orgs for the LA fires. Probably not the first time, but it's really striking this time. Second, nothing tells you the state of X better than a Community Note calling an ad on X a scam (in fancy community note words).

Twitter used to the best news source in the world too

 

[Eephus]

Just two points, it's highly ironic to me that X has been far worse as a media purveyor of info than the local new orgs for the LA fires. Probably not the first time, but it's really striking this time. Second, nothing tells you the state of X better than a Community Note calling an ad on X a scam (in fancy community note words).

Twitter used to the best news source in the world too

Let's not romanticize the past too much

 

[djmich]

So I'm reading the testimony I think Zuck is referring to. It was a meme that basically says there will be a class action lawsuit in ten years for those who took the vaccine. The administration wanted it deamplified (it was the #3 vaccine content at the time). Facebook wouldn't because it was satire. Which is fine.

But the Facebook response was "it's humorous and arguably true"

I'm not sure how that's remotely "arguably true."

That's so far the only example I can find of something that Facebook thought was true that they were asked to deamplify.

I don’t think it’d hard to imagine vaccine related class action lawsuits? (Notwithstanding immunity granted to the producers)

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I also remember the arguments about "made in a lab" those were some of the dumbest and I couldn't really believe those discussions were allowed much less happening.

I never once argued that POV.

Good

It was probably THE dumbest argument/theory going in the beginning. I remember going into the lab and us discussing those absurdity daily. Just under that one was the one where people were using that VAERS system as evidence of anything.

Wait, I should correct this. It occurs to me now that you and I are on different wavelengths. Neither of us is wrong, but we might get our wires crossed.

When I say that covid was not made in a lab, I mean I don't think it was a Chinese bioweapon. That was a, let's say, point of view that was circulating at the time.

If I had to guess, my guess is that covid probably came from some bat cave in southern China, and it ended up on some lab technician's shoe, and here we are. It was "just" a lab leak, similar to others in the past. We got very unlucky this time.

However, my next best guess is "GOF-Gone-Wrong." When you say "made in a lab," I think you might mean that. You probably meant to cast shade on that view, and I definitely argued for the plausibility of that. As I still would, of course.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I also remember the arguments about "made in a lab" those were some of the dumbest and I couldn't really believe those discussions were allowed much less happening.

I never once argued that POV.

Good

It was probably THE dumbest argument/theory going in the beginning. I remember going into the lab and us discussing those absurdity daily. Just under that one was the one where people were using that VAERS system as evidence of anything.

Wait, I should correct this. It occurs to me now that you and I are on different wavelengths. Neither of us is wrong, but we might get our wires crossed.

When I say that covid was not made in a lab, I mean I don't think it was a Chinese bioweapon. That was a, let's say, point of view that was circulating at the time.

If I had to guess, my guess is that covid probably came from some bat cave in southern China, and it ended up on some lab technician's shoe, and here we are. It was "just" a lab leak, similar to others in the past. We got very unlucky this time.

However, my next best guess is "GOF-Gone-Wrong." When you say "made in a lab," I think you might mean that. You probably meant to cast shade on that view, and I definitely argued for the plausibility of that. As I still would, of course.

No...GOF was/is always a possibility. There's no evidence (so far) in the gnome/mutation analysis that this is what happened, but it's certainly plausible. The former is what I was talking about. It was one of the more popular conspiracy theories out there at the beginning once it was announced that this came from China.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

My feeling is that it was being studied, someone got infected and here we are. The first iterations of the virus were friendly towards human tranmission/hospitality.

 

[uwillbsoon]

So I'm reading the testimony I think Zuck is referring to. It was a meme that basically says there will be a class action lawsuit in ten years for those who took the vaccine. The administration wanted it deamplified (it was the #3 vaccine content at the time). Facebook wouldn't because it was satire. Which is fine.

But the Facebook response was "it's humorous and arguably true"

I'm not sure how that's remotely "arguably true."

That's so far the only example I can find of something that Facebook thought was true that they were asked to deamplify.

I don’t think it’d hard to imagine vaccine related class action lawsuits? (Notwithstanding immunity granted to the producers)

So you would call that a "true" statement?

If that's your entire case for "the government told us to remove things that were true" you would consider that a strong case? (Not saying it is Zuck's entire case but it's all I've found so far.)

As you said, it's not even possible today. And even Facebook qualified it with "arguably."

 

[Max Power]

X Community notes appears to be going a good job of updating links for donations to the California wildfires and adding context on what % of donations each organization keeps.

These are the small things that don't get covered by fact checks that are a net benefit to online platforms.

 

[tommyGunZ]

X Community notes appears to be going a good job of updating links for donations to the California wildfires and adding context on what % of donations each organization keeps.

These are the small things that don't get covered by fact checks that are a net benefit to online platforms.

I’m interested - is there an article on this?

 

[titusbramble]

X Community notes appears to be going a good job of updating links for donations to the California wildfires and adding context on what % of donations each organization keeps.

These are the small things that don't get covered by fact checks that are a net benefit to online platforms.

I’m interested - is there an article on this?

There is not an article, but I have definitely seen people trying to do this. For example:

x.com

x.com

 

[Max Power]

X Community notes appears to be going a good job of updating links for donations to the California wildfires and adding context on what % of donations each organization keeps.

These are the small things that don't get covered by fact checks that are a net benefit to online platforms.

I’m interested - is there an article on this?

No article, but this was a tweet highlighted.

x.com

x.com

 

[CletiusMaximus]

X Community notes appears to be going a good job of updating links for donations to the California wildfires and adding context on what % of donations each organization keeps.

These are the small things that don't get covered by fact checks that are a net benefit to online platforms.

I’m interested - is there an article on this?

There is not an article, but I have definitely seen people trying to do this. For example:

x.com

x.com

X Community notes appears to be going a good job of updating links for donations to the California wildfires and adding context on what % of donations each organization keeps.

These are the small things that don't get covered by fact checks that are a net benefit to online platforms.

I’m interested - is there an article on this?

No article, but this was a tweet highlighted.

x.com

x.com

From what I can see neither of these is a community note - just people replying, right?

 

[Max Power]

X Community notes appears to be going a good job of updating links for donations to the California wildfires and adding context on what % of donations each organization keeps.

These are the small things that don't get covered by fact checks that are a net benefit to online platforms.

I’m interested - is there an article on this?

There is not an article, but I have definitely seen people trying to do this. For example:

x.com

x.com

X Community notes appears to be going a good job of updating links for donations to the California wildfires and adding context on what % of donations each organization keeps.

These are the small things that don't get covered by fact checks that are a net benefit to online platforms.

I’m interested - is there an article on this?

No article, but this was a tweet highlighted.

x.com

x.com

From what I can see neither of these is a community note - just people replying, right?

Looks like the note was removed. It had links directly to the United Way and Fire Fighters Foundation.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

X Community notes appears to be going a good job of updating links for donations to the California wildfires and adding context on what % of donations each organization keeps.

These are the small things that don't get covered by fact checks that are a net benefit to online platforms.

I’m interested - is there an article on this?

There is not an article, but I have definitely seen people trying to do this. For example:

x.com

x.com

X Community notes appears to be going a good job of updating links for donations to the California wildfires and adding context on what % of donations each organization keeps.

These are the small things that don't get covered by fact checks that are a net benefit to online platforms.

I’m interested - is there an article on this?

No article, but this was a tweet highlighted.

x.com

x.com

From what I can see neither of these is a community note - just people replying, right?

Looks like the note was removed. It had links directly to the United Way and Fire Fighters Foundation.

OK I only saw it after the Note was removed. I’m not trying to be obstinate here but still don’t understand how Community Notes work or how they are an improvement over ‘fact checking’ or just replying. In all cases it seems to be someone disagrees with a comment and posts a counterpoint.

 

[Joe Bryant]

X Community notes appears to be going a good job of updating links for donations to the California wildfires and adding context on what % of donations each organization keeps.

These are the small things that don't get covered by fact checks that are a net benefit to online platforms.

I’m interested - is there an article on this?

There is not an article, but I have definitely seen people trying to do this. For example:

x.com

x.com

X Community notes appears to be going a good job of updating links for donations to the California wildfires and adding context on what % of donations each organization keeps.

These are the small things that don't get covered by fact checks that are a net benefit to online platforms.

I’m interested - is there an article on this?

No article, but this was a tweet highlighted.

x.com

x.com

From what I can see neither of these is a community note - just people replying, right?

Looks like the note was removed. It had links directly to the United Way and Fire Fighters Foundation.

OK I only saw it after the Note was removed. I’m not trying to be obstinate here but still don’t understand how Community Notes work or how they are an improvement over ‘fact checking’ or just replying. In all cases it seems to be someone disagrees with a comment and posts a counterpoint.

I had the same question. This is my understanding of it. https://help.x.com/en/using-x/community-notes

It's not just someone disagrees and posts a counterpoint. There has to be enough people and they claim enough people "from different points of view" find the note helpful for the note to pass the threshold and be live. I'm assuming the "different point of view" thing is from their algorithm.

I do like that they share the algorithm open source.

Community Notes aim to create a better informed world by empowering people on X to collaboratively add context to potentially misleading posts. Contributors can leave notes on any post and if enough contributors from different points of view rate that note as helpful, the note will be publicly shown on a post. Sign up to become a contributor.

Community Notes are now publicly visible to everyone in the US. For more information, we have included responses to frequently asked questions below, but you can learn more through the Community Notes Guide as well.

This is an open and transparent process, that’s why we’ve made the Community Notes algorithm open source and publicly available on GitHub, along with the data that powers it so anyone can audit, analyze or suggest improvements.