When @aetiology @gorskon attack straw men & turn off tweet replies, it suggests they lack confidence in their convictions. The question is simple: Is a #lableak plausible? Or is it a “debunked” “conspiracy theory,” as it was described by the media in 2020?https://twitter.com/htown_Joe/status/1400598827015589890 …
-
Show this thread
-
What
@aetiology said. Please listen to her. When people limit who can comment or reply to statements, it suggests they may have reasons to do so.@Twitter allowed us to limit replies to followers, people tagged, or no one. https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/11/twitter-now-lets-everyone-limit-replies-to-their-tweets/ … Why? Networked abuse campaigns1 reply 0 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @digiphile @aetiology and
Threats can be reported and Twitter will take action; replies can be ignored. Wanting to be able to speak your mind without hearing opposing arguments is not an admirable trait, no matter the reason. If someone turns off replies, they open themselves up to justified criticism.
5 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @htown_Joe @digiphile and
"Twitter will take action". Are you new here? Any idea how many hundreds of these I have in my inbox? The privilege of some people, I swear. I don't owe *anyone* my time at the expense of my mental health.pic.twitter.com/o65tT257p7
2 replies 2 retweets 28 likes -
Replying to @aetiology @digiphile and
Of course you don’t own anyone a reply. Most blue checks don’t reply. You definitely should do what is best for your mental health. But if I think you’re wrong to turn off replies, I’ll criticize you. Criticism isn’t abuse. It’s not harassment. Feel free to ignore it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @htown_Joe @digiphile and
You realize that disallowing replies is also a way to keep additional misinformation off of the thread, correct? Especially when I expect 90% or more of the replies to be of that type, given the replies to other posts over the past 72 hours? /1
2 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @aetiology @htown_Joe and
/2 Clearly people know you can respond, as you did. Criticism can't be completely stopped. But I can disallow additional garbage from polluting *my post* on the topic. I think you're being intellectually dishonest here in equating "no replies" w/ "no criticism" & am done here.
3 replies 0 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @aetiology @htown_Joe and
Dr. Jonathan N. Stea Retweeted Dr. Jonathan N. Stea
Limiting replies is a way to pre-empt trolling, sealioning, harassment, bad-faith engagement, and misinformation spread. And it’s no wonder.https://twitter.com/jonathanstea/status/1293533897863569419 …
Dr. Jonathan N. Stea added,
Dr. Jonathan N. SteaVerified account @jonathansteaTrolling, harassment, and disinformation tactics towards evidence-based health care advocates. Abusive behavior: 91.9% Persistent harassment: 69.3% Physical violence/intimidation: 5.9% https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/7/e035626#T2 … By@drg1985 et al. pic.twitter.com/NfFLqKIxkE3 replies 0 retweets 7 likes
Yep. And I've experienced all of the issues in that figure at one time or another.
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @aetiology and
Dr. Jonathan N. Stea Retweeted Dr. Jonathan N. Stea
I’m sorry that you’ve experienced that. The problem with people like
@htown_Joe is that they don’t respect boundaries and disregard the reasons that people provide (in this thread) for limiting replies. They’re free to publish criticism elsewhere.https://twitter.com/jonathanstea/status/1275860556453261314 …Dr. Jonathan N. Stea added,
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @jonathanstea
You do understand that these categories are entirely subjective, right? If only Scott Lilienfeld were alive today to debunk the psuedo-psychology of “sea-lioning.”
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.