Twitter Censors Dr. Atlas for TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Amanda]

Twitter Silences Top Trump COVID Task Force Expert

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...asks-dont-work

Social media companies and mainstream media outlets are on a crusade, censoring anyone who challenges the "official" science and narrative behind the COVID-19 virus. It was only last week when Twitter removed New York Post's bombshell stories about Hunter Biden. Then later in the week, Amazon purged political writer James Perloff's latest book, "Covid-19 and the Agendas to Come: Red-Pilled," from its platform for "violating content guidelines."
With America descending deeper into an Orwellian state - Twitter has yet again banned another tweet, this time on Saturday, from Stanford professor and now White House advisor Scott Atlas.
Atlas tweeted Saturday morning that masks do not work to prevent the spread of the virus:

"Masks work? NO: LA, Miami, Hawaii, Alabama, France, Philippines, UK, Spain, Israel. WHO: "widespread use not supported" + many harms; Heneghan/Oxf CEBM: "despite decades, considerable uncertainty revalue"; CDC rvw May: "no sig red'n in inflnz transm'n"; learn why."

Hours later, in a follow-up tweet, Atlas wrote:

"That means the right policy is @realDonaldTrump guideline: use masks for their intended purpose — when close to others, especially hi risk. Otherwise, social distance. No widespread mandates."

As per a CNN report, Atlas' tweet violated Twitter's policy that "prohibits sharing false or misleading content related to Covid-19 that could lead to harm."
The Federalist points out, in an emailed response via Atlas, an array of scientific data to back up his claim:

In the deleted tweet, I cited the following evidence against general population masks:
1) Cases exploded even with mandates: Los Angeles County, Miami-Dade County, Hawaii, Alabama, the Philippines, Japan, the United Kingdom, Spain, France, Israel.
2) Dr. Carl Heneghan, University of Oxford, director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and editor in chief of British Medical Journal Evidence-Based Medicine: 'It would appear that despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks.'
(https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/)
3) The WHO: 'The widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider' (http://bitly.ws/afUm)
4) The CDC: 'Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.' (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article).
I also cited an article giving a detailed explanation of the reasons why masks might not prevent spread: https://t.co/1hRFHsxe59
The tweet and surrounding removal from Twitter come as US COVID-19 cases in the US surged above 70,000 on Friday, the highest daily reading since July 24. Atlas' tweet was also linked to an article in the American Institute for Economic Research that argues masks are not effective against the virus.

By trade, Atlas is a distinguished neuroradiologist, though he is not an expert in infectious diseases. He's gained a lot of attention on Fox News for his aggressive reopening strategies. He's also in favor of the herd immunity strategy, in which elderly and vulnerable populations need to be protected. In contrast, he says, younger segments of the population are allowed to keep working and consuming.
Atlas' former Stanford colleagues recently attacked him in a letter. Here's what they said:

"To prevent harm to the public's health, we also have both a moral and ethical responsibility to call attention to the falsehoods and misrepresentations of science recently fostered by Dr. Scott Atlas, a former Stanford Medical School colleague and current senior fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Many of his opinions and statements run counter to established science and, by doing so, undermine public-health authorities and the credible science that guides effective public health policy."

Atlas has seen his fair share of bans; not too long ago, the Hoover Institution released Atlas's interview on YouTube, where the social media platform took down the video.
Alex Berenson, a former New York Times reporter who has been skeptical about the dangers surrounding the virus pandemic - recently tweeted:

"My (non-N95) mask protects me... 1 percent of the time."

Berenson appears to back up the tweet with CDC data...

Banning of alternative views, or maybe, even ones backed by science, if it goes against the official narrative, the leftist thought police will be out in force to censor.

This is a genuinely Orwellian culture. And if social media and mainstream media can silence a top government expert - they can silence anyone...

***
fwiw- I found Dr. Atlas' email on that Stanford/Hoover site, and sent him the German lawyer outlining the scientific fraud on the Covid tests and the CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY in the lockdowns/tyrannical response.

[keehah]

NYT SJW insanity reporting quality with this article on Twitter's election interference escalation to now Twitter censoring a major New York newspaper. Spun reporting to insinuate that Twitter election interference is its reversal and decision now to NOT censor a major New York Newspaper and NYT's competitor. And still supporting and promoting FAKE NEWS pretending the Twitter's initial censorship was 'legit' in any way even in reference to Twitter's twit policies (the laptop info was not 'hacked').


NYT: In Reversal, Twitter Is No Longer Blocking New York Post Article

By Kate Conger and Mike Isaac Oct. 16, 2020

SAN FRANCISCO — It is the 11th hour before the presidential election. But Facebook and Twitter are still changing their minds.

With just a few weeks to go before the Nov. 3 vote, the social media companies are continuing to shift their policies and, in some cases, are entirely reversing what they will and won’t allow on their sites. On Friday, Twitter underlined just how fluid its policies were when it began letting users share links to an unsubstantiated New York Post article about Hunter Biden that it had previously blocked from its service.

The change was a 180-degree turn from Wednesday, when Twitter had banned the links to the article because the emails on which it was based may have been hacked and contained private information, both of which violated its policies. (Many questions remain about how the New York Post obtained the emails.)

Late Thursday, under pressure from Republicans who said Twitter was censoring them, the company began backtracking...

Also from the article, Facebook's policy now claims to prevent and censor any discussion of the fake news used to silence and guilt into genocide western peoples and civilization, as well as the rape and poisoning of their children.

Twitter’s flip-flop followed a spate of changes from Facebook, which over the past few weeks has said it would ban Holocaust denial content, ban more QAnon conspiracy pages and groups, ban anti-vaccination ads and suspend political advertising for an unspecified length of time after the election.

[keehah]

Rmx.news: Black Trump supporter's teeth knocked out by Antifa and BLM members at free speech rally, Twitter bans his account

During a free-speech rally in San Francisco, Black free speech activist Philip Anderson was attacked by Antifa and Black Lives Matter supporters as he protested outside the headquarters of Twitter [on Saturday October 17]. The incident resulted in Anderson having his two front teeth knocked out.

After having his teeth knocked out, Twitter banned Anderson's account from the network. Ironically, Anderson and his group were present at Twitter to protest censorship from the social media giant and its decision to censor the New York Post article about Hunter Biden's emails and Joe Biden's potential connection to Burisma energy company corruption.

Witnesses confirmed that the attack, which took place on late Saturday afternoon, was unprovoked and that Anderson was singled out for his free-speech activism.

"Antifa attacked me for no reason. These people are racist terrorists," wrote Anderson on Twitter.

[keehah]

dailywire.com: Twitter Suspends Account Tracking Ghislaine Maxwell Trial
Dec 8, 2021

https://gab.com/TrialTracker/posts/107414471751679895

Maxwell Trial Tracker

The last tweet we posted was implying Epstein was tied to the Mossad intelligence agency. A few hours later we are banned. World governments shaking.

reclaimthenet.org: Twitter will now ban users that repeatedly claim vaccinated people can spread Covid

10:34 am
Twitter has quietly updated its “COVID-19 misleading information policy” to impose new sanctions on tweets about vaccines, PCR tests, and health authorities. These sanctions include removing and labeling tweets. Both types of sanctions also result in Twitter users accruing strikes on their account which can lead to a permanent suspension...

One of the most notable changes to this “COVID-19 misleading information policy” we noticed is related to claims about whether vaccinated people can spread the coronavirus. The policy now states that Twitter will label tweets with “corrective information” and give users a strike if they:

Claim that “the vaccines will cause you to be sick, spread the virus, or would be more harmful than getting COVID-19”
Post what Twitter describes as “false or misleading claims that people who have received the vaccine can spread or shed the virus (or symptoms, or immunity) to unvaccinated people”

This means Twitter users could now be sanctioned for sharing or discussing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) admission that “vaccinated people can still become infected and have the potential to spread the virus to others.”

Another change is that Twitter will start giving a strike to and labeling the tweets of users that use research and statistical findings to “make claims contrary to health authorities,” if it decides that their claims “misrepresent research or statistical findings pertaining to the severity of the disease, prevalence of the virus, or effectiveness of widely accepted preventative measures, treatments, or vaccines.”

Previously, Twitter would sanction what it deemed to be “false or misleading” information about research findings but there was no provision about contradicting health authorities.

In addition to this, Twitter will give users two strikes and remove their tweets if they claim that “vaccines approved by health agencies (such as Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine in the United States) did not actually receive full approval/authorization, and therefore that the vaccines are untested, ‘experimental’ or somehow unsafe.” This appears to be a reference to criticism of a footnote in the Federal Drug Administration (FDA’s) “full authorization” documents for the Pfizer-BioNTech (Comirnaty) vaccine which revealed that the FDA had extended the emergency-use authorization for the same vaccine.

Furthermore, users that claim that vaccines are part of a “global surveillance” effort will have their tweets removed and be given two strikes. The introduction of this provision follows vaccine-related surveillance tech, such as vaccine passports, being introduced in many countries.

Some of the other claims that will be sanctioned under Twitter’s updated policy include:

• “False or misleading information suggesting that unapproved treatments can be curative of COVID-19” (label and one strike)
• “Claims that “vaccines (in general) are dangerous and the adverse effects that have been covered up by governments/the medical industry” (removal and two strikes)
• “Tweets that incite fear or misrepresent the ingredients or contents of COVID-19 vaccines” (label and one strike)
• “Tweets that mischaracterize the nature and science behind mRNA vaccines, and how they work” (label and one strike)
• “Tweets that claim vaccines alter genetic code” (label and one strike)”

[keehah]

informationliberation.com: Neocon Vulture Capitalist Paul Singer Buying Up Twitter Stock to Oust CEO Jack Dorsey: Report

Mar. 01, 2020
Vulture Capitalist Paul Singer, a major pro-Israel donor who pushed the GOP to embrace the LGBT agenda and funded the notorious Steele dossier, is reportedly buying up shares of Twitter stock in order to oust CEO Jack Dorsey.

From Bloomberg, "Singer’s Elliott Seeks to Replace Twitter CEO Dorsey" [February 28, 2020]

informationliberation.com: Jack Dorsey Reveals He Gave Up Fight Against Censorship Due to Paul Singer's Hostile Takeover of Twitter in 2020

Dec. 15, 2022
Twitter founder Jack Dorsey revealed Tuesday that he gave up fighting against censorship in early 2020 after an "activist" investor -- almost certainly billionaire vulture capitalist Paul Singer -- started gobbling up Twitter shares in a bid to oust him as CEO.

Singer, the founder of Elliott Investment Management, is a pro-Israel megadonor to the GOP who funded the Steele dossier and bought off Republican representatives to get them to surrender to the LGBT agenda.

He purchased a massive stake in Twitter in 2020 for at least $387 million, installed Elliott partner Jesse Cohn on Twitter's board and successfully lobbied to have Dorsey booted as the CEO of his own company and replaced with the far worse puppet Parag Agrawal.

Dorsey expressed his regrets in a statement on his blog on Tuesday:

There's a lot of conversation around the #TwitterFiles. Here's my take, and thoughts on how to fix the issues identified.

I'll start with the principles I've come to believe...based on everything I've learned and experienced through my past actions as a Twitter co-founder and lead:

1. Social media must be resilient to corporate and government control.
2. Only the original author may remove content they produce.
3. Moderation is best implemented by algorithmic choice.

The Twitter when I led it and the Twitter of today do not meet any of these principles. This is my fault alone, as I completely gave up pushing for them when an activist entered our stock in 2020. I no longer had hope of achieving any of it as a public company with no defense mechanisms (lack of dual-class shares being a key one). I planned my exit at that moment knowing I was no longer right for the company.

The biggest mistake I made was continuing to invest in building tools for us to manage the public conversation, versus building tools for the people using Twitter to easily manage it for themselves. This burdened the company with too much power, and opened us to significant outside pressure (such as advertising budgets). I generally think companies have become far too powerful, and that became completely clear to me with our suspension of Trump's account. As I've said before, we did the right thing for the public company business at the time, but the wrong thing for the internet and society.

https://www.weforum.org/people/paul-singer

[keehah]

When the censorship regimes use the word disinformation is this short for diss information or dissmiss information or both?



WaPo: Following Elon Musk’s lead, Big Tech is surrendering to disinformation
August 25, 2023

Social media companies are receding from their role as watchdogs against political misinformation, abandoning their most aggressive efforts to police online falsehoods in a trend expected to profoundly affect the 2024 presidential election.

An array of circumstances is fueling the retreat: Mass layoffs at Meta and other major tech companies have gutted teams dedicated to promoting accurate information online. An aggressive legal battle over claims that the Biden administration pressured social media platforms to silence certain speech has blocked a key path to detecting election interference.

And X CEO Elon Musk has reset industry standards, rolling back strict rules against misinformation on the site formerly known as Twitter...

The retrenchment comes just months ahead of the 2024 primaries, as GOP front-runner Donald Trump continues to rally supporters with false claims that election fraud drove his 2020 loss to Joe Biden. Multiple investigations into the election have revealed no evidence of fraud, and Trump now faces federal criminal charges connected to his efforts to overturn the election...

On Thursday night, Trump posted on X for the first time since he was kicked off the site... “NEVER SURRENDER!” read the caption...

The new approach marks a sharp shift from the 2020 election, when social media companies expanded their efforts to police disinformation. The companies feared a repeat of 2016, when Russian trolls attempted to interfere in the U.S. presidential campaign, turning the platforms into tools of political manipulation and division...

These pared-down commitments emerge as covert influence campaigns from Russia and China have grown more aggressive...

Experts in disinformation say the dynamic headed into 2024 calls for more aggressive efforts to combat it, not less...

The social media platforms say they still have tools to prevent the spread of misinformation.

“We remove content that misleads voters on how to vote or encourages interference in the democratic process,” YouTube spokesperson Ivy Choi said in a statement. “Additionally, we connect people to authoritative election news and information through recommendations and information panels.”...

Fact-checkers at USA Today, one of dozens of media organizations Meta pays to debunk viral conspiracies, deemed [a] post false, and the company labeled it on Facebook as “false information.” But Meta has quietly begun offering users new controls to opt out of the fact-checking program, allowing debunked posts such as the falsified one about Pritzker to spread in participants’ news-feeds with a warning label. Conservatives have long criticized Meta’s fact-checking system, arguing it is biased against them.

Meta Global Affairs President Nick Clegg said the ability to opt out represents a new direction that empowers users and eases scrutiny over the company. “We feel we’ve moved quite dramatically in favor of giving users greater control over even quite controversial sensitive content,” Clegg said. McPike added that the new fact-checking policy comes “in response to users telling us that they want a greater ability to decide what they see.”

These shifts are a reaction from social media executives to being battered by contentious battles over content and concluding there is “no winning,” said Katie Harbath, former director of public policy at Facebook, where she managed the global elections strategy across the company.

“For Democrats, we weren’t taking down enough, and for Republicans we were taking down too much,” she said. The result was an overall sense that “after doing all this, we’re still getting yelled at … It’s just not worth it anymore.”

For years, many of Meta’s trust and safety teams operated like a university. Driven by curiosity, employees were encouraged to seek out the thorniest problems on the platform — issues such as fraud, abuse, bias and attempts at voter suppression — and develop systems to help.

But in the last year and a half, some workers say there has been a shift away from that proactive stance. Instead, they are now asked to spend more of their time figuring out how to minimally comply with a booming list of global regulations, according to four current and former employees.

That’s a departure from the approach tech companies took after Russia manipulated social media to attempt to swing the 2016 election to Trump...

As Trump questioned the validity of mail-in ballots in 2020, Facebook and Twitter took the unprecedented step of attaching information labels such as, “This claim about election fraud is disputed” to scores of misleading comments...

In early January 2021, rioters incited by Trump assaulted the U.S. Capitol after organizing themselves, in part, on Facebook and Twitter. In response, Meta, Twitter, Google and other tech companies suspended Trump, forcibly removing the president from their platforms.

The moment was the peak of social media companies’ confrontation with political misinformation.

But as the tech giants grappled with narrowing profits, this proactive stance began to dissolve...

Soon after Musk’s Twitter acquisition, scores of Republican candidates and right-wing influencers tested Meta, Twitter and other social media platforms’ resolve to fight election misinformation...

When Twitter, seemingly in response to journalists’ questions, appeared to restrict [a Republican candidate] account, Musk declared he was “looking into” complaints that Finchem was being censored. Later that evening, Finchem was back to tweeting his message. He thanked Musk “for stopping the commie who suspended me from Twitter a week before the election.”

...Now, Meta is eyeing ways to cut down on having to referee controversial political content on its new Twitter-like social media app, Threads. Instagram head Adam Mosseri, who led efforts to build Threads, said earlier this year that the platform would not actively “encourage” politics and “hard news,” because the extra user engagement is not worth the scrutiny.

But even as it tries to retreat from the political culture wars, there’s no hiding from the coming election.

Soon after the company launched Threads, Meta started warning users who tried to follow Donald Trump Jr. on the new social network that his account has repeatedly posted false information reviewed by independent fact-checkers. Trump Jr. posted a screenshot of the message on rival Twitter, complaining that “Threads not exactly off to a great start.”

A Meta spokesperson responded by saying, “This was an error and shouldn’t have happened. It’s been fixed.”