Which, yes, we can say only CDC should communicate with the public so there's a single unified voice. That's fine, maybe it's right! But the implication is to get experts out of the public sphere, since they often disagree with each other.
-
-
Replying to @stgoldst @ChachaMarquis
Not only is there no such implication, and something I'd never advocate for, it is not possible or desirable and the void would be filled with snake oil. I do, however, think you're underestimating how confusing it is out there. Blue checks, Harvard positions, PhDs... It exists.
3 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @ChachaMarquis
I think I’ve conceded/agreed that there is confusion out there. I see it as well because I get questions in person and via DM.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I disagree on whether there is such an implication, but content to leave it there.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @stgoldst @ChachaMarquis
I honestly think it would make things worse.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep @ChachaMarquis
I genuinely appreciate you clarifying that.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @stgoldst @ChachaMarquis
zeynep tufekci Retweeted zeynep tufekci
It would be more of this:https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1354549000247144449 …
zeynep tufekci added,
zeynep tufekciVerified account @zeynepTop of thread: "REPLAPSE". Gets ~4000 retweets. Thirteen tweets later... "To be clear." "In mice." WebMD. 15 Retweets. Copy-paste from researcher—and even that's cherry-picked—not contextualization of findings or independent evaluation. No way to present a study or be informed. pic.twitter.com/Ch1RsObcrYShow this thread1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted zeynep tufekci
zeynep tufekci added,
zeynep tufekciVerified account @zeynepFirst tweet in thread, with 4000+ retweets and quote tweets. "Good and bad news." (What bad news? It was all-around excellent news). Finally, 22nd tweet with a clarification. Only 37 retweets and quote tweets. Don't do this people. Also don't get your information this way. pic.twitter.com/9jM4mOveYsShow this thread2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
The worst. Can take any preprint and turn it into a


20-tweet thread about how we’re all doomed, next thing you know your mother is texting you to ask if it’s true1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
I normally don't like highlighting individuals (looks like petty fighting people can't figure out) but Twitter *recommends* him as someone to follow for COVID-19 as a topic, and I'm constantly getting questions about his claims which are a dangerous mix of ok not wrong and NOPE.
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes
My concern the new public sphere: how do we create signposts/adapt our institutions and do more so people can navigate between: legit intra-expert-disagreement (fine), borderline/grift w/ credentials, deliberate disinformation (B*renson), and what is near-consensus among experts.
-
-
Agreed this is a problem we need to solve
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
What about having scientific societies with specific expertise certifying specific messengers and sending cease and desist messages to well intentioned but wrong folks (like you-know-who). Like if the IDSA contacted him to ask him to think before he tweets, I think it might work?
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.