Paul GrahamVerified account

There are two separate things happening here: shutting down their Twitter account, and flagging links to their site as dangerous. The former is arguably a justifiable punishment for giving the researcher's phone number. But how does this (mild) doxxing make the site dangerous?

"If it turns out that the coronavirus did escape from a lab in Wuhan, Twitter is going to owe ZeroHedge an apology" - I'm pointing out that the ToS violation had nothing to do with Twitter 'arbitrating truth' and getting it wrong, as the tweet implied & most of the replies echo'd

It's fine to ban an account for violating the ToS, but when Twitter flags any link to the site that anyone else posts on Twitter, especially using the language that they do, they're implying that the site is dangerous to users, not merely that its owners broke Twitter's rules.

Imagine if when HN banned a user, they also banned links to their site. That would either be a ridiculously draconian punishment, or would imply that there was something wrong with the site. If we assume Twitter is not ridiculously draconian, they're implying the site is bad.

...so they owe an apology depending on the outcome of the conspiracy, why?

If it turns out the virus escaped from a lab, then ZeroHedge was closer to the truth in January than most news outlets. Surely, if so, it will seem mistaken to have flagged links to their site.

But there is strong evidence against this. Why spread misinformation in an epidemic?