Posted on 07/22/2021 7:18:28 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
On Tuesday morning, when I went to use my Twitter account, I was greeted by a different screen than normal. It contained one single tweet of mine, beneath which was a large red button labeled “Remove.” I had violated Twitter guidelines, because of which I was blocked from using my account. The two options were to remove the offending tweet or to appeal. I chose to appeal.
To give the relevant background, over the weekend, I had posted a comment on both Twitter and Facebook, saying, “To those who are outraged over the fact that many Americans still choose not to be vaccinated, do you honestly believe that if those people were convinced the vaccines were perfectly safe in the long term and would save lives that most of them would not be vaccinated immediately?” (This is the Facebook link; I would give you the Twitter link except that, well, I can’t, since I’m blocked from accessing my account.)
I had first posted the comment on Twitter, where it generated a lively discussion, after which my wife Nancy said to me, “You should post it on Facebook and see what happens.”
She suggested this because she has noticed how Facebook has largely strangled the distribution of my articles and posts on cultural and political topics, to the point that we’ve seen a reduction of as much as 90 percent (if not more at times).
What would happen, she wondered, if I posted this same comment on Facebook?
To our pleasant surprise, the post generated about 1.4 thousand likes and 1.2 thousand comments and, to this moment, it has not been removed. (Of course, the ubiquitous Facebook public service announcement is attached to the post: “Visit the COVID-19 Information Center for vaccine resources. Get Vaccine Info.”)
I also made my own public position clear on Facebook: “For the record, I have encouraged everyone to do the research and make informed decisions for themselves. I have not advocated a particular position for others to take.”
Back over at Twitter, a pastor with the last name Mather, making him a distant descendant of the early American Christian leader Cotton Mather (1663-1728) responded to my tweet. He pointed out that Cotton Mather believed in the integration of science and faith, getting vaccinated himself. (I would supply the direct quote with a link to the tweet except that, well, I can’t, since I can’t access my account.)
In response, I tweeted, “@jjmather Interestingly, Jonathan Edwards died in 1758 as a result of the smallpox vaccine he received.”
That was it. Nothing about COVID (obviously). Nothing about vaccines today. No misinformation. No conspiracy theories. Nothing in violation of Twitter guidelines at all. Not a word.
I simply related an interesting and relevant historical fact in response to the comment about Cotton Mather. (To be specific, Edwards died of a smallpox inoculation rather than vaccine. As explained on the Historical Horizons website, “Edwards embraced the new science of his day, especially new techniques being used to combat diseases. When smallpox swept into Princeton, New Jersey during the winter of 1757-58, Edwards, the local college’s newly minted president, got a shot from a reputable doctor. Thirty-seven days later Jonathan Edwards was dead from the shot.” And, “Actually it was not a shot. The accepted procedure involved rubbing matter removed from a pustule into a small incision made between the thumb and index finger.”)
What, then, was my crime?
Clicking on the link provided by Twitter, I was directed to a page explaining that, among many other potential violations, posting misleading information about COVID-19 was a violation of Twitter policy. When I clicked on the link supplying more detailed information, I was brought to this page, stating, “As the global community faces the COVID-19 pandemic together, Twitter is helping people find reliable information, connect with others, and follow what’s happening in real time.”
There, under the heading, “Protecting the public conversation,” the following 9 bulleted items were listed:
· Clarifying how we assess misleading information
· Updating our approach to misleading information
· Broadening our guidance on unverified claims
· Our ads policy for COVID-19
· Broadening our definition of "harm"
· An update on our content moderation work
· Automated technology and what to expect if you file a report
· Additional triage, quality assurance, and ongoing review of Twitter's rules
· Our zero-tolerance approach to platform manipulation
Can anyone tell me how posting a factual comment about the death of Jonathan Edwards in 1758 is in violation of any of these terms? Would any rational human being assume that I was saying, “I’m warning you not to get the COVID vaccine in 2021 seeing that Edwards died 263 years ago from a failed vaccination attempt”? (Does anyone think that medicine and technology have not advanced dramatically since 1758?)
But today, it appears that even posting historical facts that are deemed inconvenient is a challenge to Big Tech’s iron grip.
Perhaps the cause of Edwards’ death will now be scrubbed from our history books too? (The History Extra website ran an April 2020 article titled, “Rewriting the past: the history that inspired Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.”)
Because I only have 42.8 thousand Twitter followers it was not urgent that I was able to access my account again. And so, for sake of principle (and as a teachable moment), I chose to appeal the ruling. (As I write, about 12 hours later, there has been no response from Twitter, other than to acknowledge my appeal.)
That being said, because the tweet in itself was not vitally important to me, should Twitter drag its feet in responding, I’ll likely remove the tweet and reactivate my account. For me, this tweet is not a hill worth dying on.
But unless Twitter fails to apologize to me in writing, saying that this was an error on their account, we now have yet another example of the degree to which dangerous lines are being crossed.
Not only are dissenting opinions not welcome. Inconvenient historical facts are banned as well.
To quote Orwell’s 1984, “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”
Dr. Michael Brown (www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. He holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a professor at a number of seminaries. He is the author of 40 books. Connect with him on Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube.
Why use Twitter at all?
That was my first thought. Far too many conservatives and independents don’t have the will to do without in today’s society.
At least he got a warning and an explanation
My account was simply purged and suspended the same night as President Trump was purged. No warning. No explanation.
I posted on CBC (Can) stats straight from Health Canada website(copy & paste).
Got me banned. LOL
‘TWITTER’ comes from the word ‘niTWIT’, or having the brains of a ‘nit’.
And yet every other frog still in the pot as the heat keeps turning up remains.... because it’s still how they keep in touch with loved ones.
For them, the censorship is ok because it hasn’t happened to them yet.
Because hundreds of millions of people are using Twitter.
Far too many conservatives and independents believe it's preferable to remain in backwater echo-chambers preaching to the choir on websites nobody has ever heard of while Marxists reach hundreds of millions on the mainstream social media sites.
One: Twitter shouldn’t be doing this and is draconian and Totalitarian.
Two: he himself debunks himself.
“Nothing about vaccines today. No misinformation.”
But it was about vaccines and was misinformation, as he himself points out:
“To be specific, Edwards died of a smallpox inoculation rather than vaccine.”
So why did he write “Jonathan Edwards died in 1758 as a result of the smallpox vaccine he received”?
Again, Twitter is fascist totalitarian. He should have a right to broadcast his stupidity.
Are you unaware of the totalitarianism taking place in response to Trump winning in 2016 and 2020?
My Twitter presence is extremely limited but is used in association with professional interests. I’ve never been the least bit tempted to join F-c-book and strenuously avoid it although my church pastor loves it. As with all social media, if you can’t square yourself with the way they handle their business, drop them.
If they are going to censor your words, why even use them?
It appears to me from a distance, that the problem with Twitter is not Twitter but the people who use it.
It's very simple. Stop using Twitter and the problem will go away.
Yes, it's all over Twitter.
$$$$
Many people use social media as their primary source of income
I have a Twitter account primarily for information. I can count the times I have posted any comments there on one hand.
I donâÂÂt, and I WONâÂÂT do Facebook.
“ It appears to me from a distance, that the problem with Twitter is not Twitter but the people who use it.”
Your distant observation is wrong. When it comes to censorship, the problem with Twitter, and pretty much all social media comes from the woke leadership.
I see people asking why even be on them. Well they don’t seem to comprehend that spending all your time in an echo chamber doesn’t help anything. You need to take the fight to the people on the platform they are on. We WANT to post and comment among the misinformed masses. It’s the only way you can expose them to truth.
Exactly. I think it is pretty clear at this point that Twitter and ilk are the actual fake news/misinformation sites, and have proven time and time again that they aren’t interested in facts, just propaganda.
You do realize that major company’s decimate information on Twitter. These type of comments do not good, you don’t want to use Twitter fine, but don’t tell others what to do. That is not conservative either
Yup, and for them, moving to obscure alternative social media with hardly a yone there will not pay the bills. Its unreal what so e people make per month on places like facist youtube. they aren’t gonna go to some a.ternative site and lose a ton of money, or rather not make nearly as much $$.
Those who don’t actually make $$, but who won’t leave for other pastures, are addicted to the attention, and moving to an obscure less popular, network wouldn’t give them the exposure and recognition They want.social media really is like a drug to many. The panic when they can’t check out how many likes they got for thei last post
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.