Twitter's most valuable users are ghosting the platform With just days to go before Elon Musk closes his acquisition of Twitter, internal research has revealed an exodus of the social media platform's most valuable users. Earlier this week, Musk said he would complete the buyout by Friday, October 28, a court-ordered deadline, during a video conference call with bankers helping to …
Me too. I am actually finding Reddit to be a better way to follow my favorite issues. The narrowly focused sub-reddits are better filters than what Twitter offers. And Twitter's "algorithm" keeps pushing stuff at me I have no interest in just because it might maybe be somehow related to something I read once.
Reddit must surely be the most badly designed website to ever exist. (I'm talking about the user interface, not the technical side)
It's basically just a web forum, but OMG, do they earn money for every mouse-click? "View discussion", "Expand this thread", "see more", and when you expand the thread you have to go back to the previous page to see other posts.
Bleugh.
For that, there's Nitter
It's a Twitter proxy that just fetches tweets with their API, while removing all of the tracking crap and bypassing the forced-login.
Just replace twitter.com with nitter.net in any URL
Seconded!
I started using nitter a couple months ago when scrolling down to replies to tweets would pop up a login dialog. I only ever use Twitter to view a tweet URL referenced elsewhere, but often the replies are the best (i.e. hilarious or informative, occasionally both) part of it or someone is trying to write a long post using Twitter so they have parts "2/14", "3/14" etc. in the replies.
Too bad they couldn't load the full thread (or at least a larger portion of it, including replies to replies) but I guess that's the compromise you have to accept for a free service with no visible means of revenue support (maybe it is making money somehow from learning what tweets people are looking at?)
Equally importantly, Nitter isn't just one site (there are lots of public instances of it), it's the open source software behind that site, so you can download nitter and host your own instance if you want.
Speaking from personal experience, and I was a very heavy Twitter user at one stage, the platform has just become rather unpleasant, vicious and toxic.
It was a nice space in the early days, entertaining banter and even the concept of meeting people at Tweetups was fairly nice and friendly, but it’s really fallen into being an utter cesspit since then.
The pandemic and the rise of populist politics & conspiracy theorists, people ranting about various topics, pile ons and all of that just made it an obnoxious place to interact.
I still have a very nice bubble of people, most of whom are from the early days of Twitter and are still fun to interact with, but step outside that or put a foot wrong and you’re into political extremists, people ranting and raving, bots, vicious and malicious posting and so on.
It’s at a stage where I don’t find a flick though Twitter fun and I find posting on it is like sticking your toe into a tank of cartoon piranhas.
Just as an example, I said something critical of Liz Truss’ economic policies and all of a sudden was getting racist abuse from a Brexiteer!!? I wasn’t even intending to interact with them and my comment was really mild.
All of that has just caused me to stop posting as much and more blandly.
Also I’ve friends who work in minor journalism / media or other public facing roles that mean they need to keep a Twitter profile, and the abuse they get sometimes is just sickening. I don’t see the point.
Even in a work context, you can see accounts from really non controversial companies post something dull and it gets nothing but abuse. The likes of public health agencies and local authorities are often getting pile ons of conspiracy theorists, anti vaxxers etc and they’re often very far away but you’d wonder why these bodies and agencies even bother to post anymore.
Quite honestly, I think Twitter is over. It’s being ghosted because it’s no longer a nice platform to interact with. Simple as that!
Meanwhile, Facebook is tumble weed at this stage too.
I’d delete my account if it didn’t contain a few obscure friends and family members who I’d entirely lose touch with if I do and I have long since deleted Meta apps from my phone.
I feel the same way, and I've changed my password to something that I've since forgotten, to give me enough friction to stay off (for a while at least).
I'm not sure what you mean about "conspiracy", as it seems a lot of what was called conspiracy in 2020 has turned out to be true. Things like the lab leak theory as now considered plausible, which would make them an actual conspiracy if true. A whole bunch of people who simply wanted kids to stay in school, because they felt the cons outweighed the pros, have been deplatformed / re-platformed at various points.
You talk about anti-vaxxers, and I assume you are referring to Covid (even though it's not technically a vaccine). Something that is never going to give herd immunity, because it doesn't stop the spread. And it seems that any benefit seems to wear off to zero after about 5 months. Having had two doses, it does feel like I've been mis-sold, and I won't be risking any more (of this particular therapy), although I'll still take others as required if they give a benefit. Does that make me one of the "anti-vaxxers" that you are referring to, or are you talking about the magnets / 5G lot?
Going back to the lab leak, it's really important to find out if that's what happened, as they are up to it again doing gain-of-function research on Omicron to make it more deadly (WHY!?). Although Boston Uni say that's not gain-of-function, I'm not sure how they figure that one!?
He is saying, but there isn’t a peer reviewed study that says that COVID could have been man made, there are some pamphlets in the internet that pretend to show that it was a possibility by touting pseudo scientific information to neophytes. The same about COVID vaccines nobody has established their duration in a peer reviewed study but many ride in the gullibility of anti-vaxxers and conspiracy believers.
I'm not sure 'peer reviewed' means what you think it means. It certainly doesn't mean 'this is defacto the truth'. It usually means there are no glaring errors in the method.
Unvaxxed deplorable and proud of it. Had the coof once, got over it.
If he had bothered to read the research into long-term covid issues, he wouldn't be so glib. Ignorance is dangerous.
He may feel fine, but he's significantly more likely to die of stroke or heart attack down the line. https://www.immunology.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/BSI_Long_Term_Immunology_Health_Consequences_Covid-19.pdf
There is also increased danger of permanent weakening of the immune system: https://www.immunology.ox.ac.uk/covid-19/covid-19-immunology-literature-reviews/the-analysis-of-the-long-term-impact-of-sars-cov-2-1-on-the-cellular-immune-system-in-individuals-recovering-from-covid-19-reveals-a-profound-nkt-cell-impairment
It's funny how all those that refuse to take an "untested, new vaccine" because of potential long term side effects, are willing to suffer an untested, new virus, without caring about its long term side effects....
Ahh... 'long term' study papers from late summer 2020. I forgot that 3-4 months is now long term.
The first link if you look at the references you see 'estimation' 'presumed' 'estimating'. The second is based on 49 patients.
"It is not yet known how the immune system is altered in patients who have chronic symptoms after infection and those that have none. However, if the immune system is involved in the neurological symptoms then there must be an interaction between the immune and neuroendocrine systems."
Translation: 'we guessing'.
SAGE members have admitted using fear and propaganda techniques to try and alter the public perception of the risk in order to get their way. Remember how Sweden was attacked and now has one of the lowest excess death rates in Europe.
I've got a method with which your country can reach even lower excess death rates in just two months. Absolutely guaranteed to work, mathematical certainty. It may violate several international conventions related to genocide, but that's a small price to pay for low excess deaths.
"Had the coof once"
That's the second time I've seen "coof" in the this context. What is it, how did that word come into existence? Is it an abbreviation of something? Or Covid pronounced differently in a language I'm not families with and "coof" is the shortened term? Do you call it Coofid where you live?
For clarity, I've quite literally never heard that word other than seen it here on these forums a couple times.
"Unvaxxed deplorable and proud of it. Had the coof once, got over it."
I know 2 people that died from it, one that lost kidney function, another that lost four limbs.
I've had it twice,, and was lucky enough to only have flu-like symptoms. That doesn't prove anything. People survived spanish flu and the bubonic plague, it doesn't mean either of them were "just a cold".
Who exactly is going to pay for that peer reviewed study?
The WHO initially sent Peter Daszak to investigate and he found no evidence of a lab leak. He didn't visit the lab. He works for Eco Health Alliance who had applied for funding to carry out research on bat coronaviruses, but were rejected because dangers of gain of function.
They sent the poacher to check the pheasants are OK.
He then had close ties with the lab in Wuhan, doing what we don't know exactly.
The database from that lab went offline in late 2019, never to return (because it was hacked).
The furin cleavage site makes it look man made.
They were known to be carrying out bat coronavirus experiments at Wuhan.
This is all from the top of my head.
From all the swabs taken at the wet market on animals, no Covid was found.
The list goes on, if you can be bothered to look.
It COULD still be just co-incidence, but I'm suggesting some further digging might be a good idea, considering what's at stake and all.
If we get this wrong, it could happen again. It might even be worse next time. Wouldn't it be worth the time or a few dozen independent scientists to go and properly check? Considering the millions that have died.
Or we should just move on, because there isn't a peer reviewed study.
So yeah, I'm "just asking questions". Seems perfectly reasonable thing to ask questions about. Why would you not?
"So yeah, I'm "just asking questions". Seems perfectly reasonable thing to ask questions about. Why would you not?"
Maybe because you have posted a lot of opinion and no evidence, other than "everyone knows".
Sorry, your conspiracy theories don't impress anyone.
Just asking questions is pretty important. That's how science works (but not "The Science") Otherwise you'll just go along with whatever the government or authorities tell you. And governments are mostly corruptible, especially in the USA.
People with proper qualifications asking questions, yes that's important to the progress of science. Some blowhard on TV whose scientific education ended with dissecting a frog at age 16, not so much.
Idiots like that just make the job of real scientists 10x harder, especially when their "just asking questions" lead some people down a rathole that has them issuing death threats to public servants like Tony Fauci because they don't like what he says or because he isn't kissing the ass of their orange deity.
Idiots like that just make the job of real scientists 10x harder
Yeh, every scientist should be free to make a mild Omicron strain 10x more deadly. What could possibly go wrong?
issuing death threats to public servants like Tony Fauci because they don't like what he says,
Or what he said has demonstrably been proven wrong. I don't think he deserves to die for that, but I don't think he deserves retiring on the largest pension in US history either.
or because he isn't kissing the ass of their orange deity
I think he did a lot of kissing to end up as wealthy as he did. I also think he still has a lot of questions to answer.
I think he did a lot of kissing to end up as wealthy as he did. I also think he still has a lot of questions to answer
Republicans can investigate Fauci's wealth after they investigate all the ways Trump grifted as president, by essentially stealing money donated to his inauguration, to redirecting foreign visitors to the hotel he owned in DC, to how knows what sort of scummy under the table stuff resulted in the idiot son in law with zero finance experience overseeing a fund with $2 billion in Saudi blood money.
Republicans can investigate Fauci's wealth after they investigate all the ways Trump grifted as president,
Ah, TDS. Many still appear to be suffering from that. Hillary was on TV recently talking about how Trump stole her election, and how those evil Republicans are plotting to steal the mid-terms, and then the next US election. Funny how election denial affects some people, and not others.
...to how knows what sort of scummy under the table stuff resulted in the idiot son in law with zero finance experience overseeing a fund with $2 billion in Saudi blood money.
Yup. Dems have had years to investigate that stuff. Reps may instead investigate Dems idiot sons, who ended up with billions in Ukrainian and Chinese blood money. US public may choose to vote for a party that's.. less selective about the crimes that get investigated. It would be nice to know if Covid originated in a lab, and if US taxpayer's funded it's development, along with Faucci's pension. Or do you think detention without trial for Jan 6th trespassers is really America's #1 crime reduction priority?
Or do you think detention without trial for Jan 6th trespassers is really America's #1 crime reduction priority?
Conservatives seem to think pretrial detention for months or years is fine for crimes far more minor than what the Jan 6 traitors are charged with, but only so long as they are black.
Face it, the issue conservatives have with their "patriots" being behind bars awaiting trial is because they're white.
You do realise there were black people at Jan 6th with some in gaol for it? You keep making this a race issue when it isn't.
It seems that if you push someone infront of a train or smash them in the head with a brick or kill someone in the crossfire of a gang shootout you get let out without bail and often have the charges dropped. Whereas walking on the grass at the capitol lands you in the gulag.
https://torontosun.com/news/world/no-charges-in-deadly-chicago-shootout-due-to-mutual-combat
https://torontosun.com/news/world/no-charges-in-deadly-chicago-shootout-due-to-mutual-combat
Aren't conservatives in favor of "stand your ground" laws?
Anyway, the 10 states with the highest crime rates per capita are all republican controlled, with Oklahoma at #1. So who has the crime problem, exactly? It is easy to point to big cities and big states and list scary looking raw numbers, but this is not a problem for only blue states despite what Tuck Tuck and Shammity tell you.
And don't forget that violent crime peaked in the early 90s and fell consistently until the middle of the last decade, but republicans have been screaming about crime all the time louder and louder to make their sheep believe it is at an all time high, when it isn't even close.
Steve's comment is exactly the kind of thing I think Slx was referring to.
Slx posted a reasoned, non-inflammatory, well written set of thoughts about why Twitter (and Facebook) are basically over now, and Steve comes back with some mildly unhinged nonsense about the COVID vaccines not technically being a vaccine. Slx said "conspiracy theories", without saying anything at all about COVID, and Steve got triggered by his favorite "conspiracy".
This annoys me, and then makes me write this comment... so then take this whole phenomenon, magnify it by 100, and you have Twitter in a nutshell.
My question: Is this the inevitable outcome of any weakly-moderated social platform?
Slx posted a reasoned, non-inflammatory, well written set of thoughts about why Twitter (and Facebook) are basically over now, and Steve comes back with some mildly unhinged nonsense about the COVID vaccines not technically being a vaccine.
Mildly unhinged? How civil. But that was kinda the point. The vaccine seems rather ineffective. Faucci and Biden have had Covid multiple times, despite being heavily vaxxed. Allegedly. Or technically, vaccines weren't tested for their effect on transmissability before being sold to billions as a way to prevent transmission. So technically, a lie. Or just mis-sold. Ivermectin was labelled a 'horse pill', despite having won a Nobel Prize for it's discoverers, and it being a very effective anti-parasitic. Wearing paper masks will prevent/reduce the spread, except for when that didn't. Or there's the potentially inflammatory effects of spike proteins on people's health.
So yes, there was a lot of mildly unhinged nonsense about the 'vid. Some of which people still believe. Some of that is changing, ie the opinion that policies were ineffective, or destructive. Some is still unknown, ie the origin. Some is being undone, ie
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-25/nyc-is-ordered-to-reinstate-workers-fired-for-vaccine-refusal
with NYC being ordered to reinstate employees with backpay after they were fired for disobeying orders from their authoritarian leaders. And Twatter, along with other anti-social media played a big role in promoting the official narrative, and stifling any rational debate.
Err, Mr. Eel, you are missing the point so much as to whack yourself in the face with the bat.
The OP's point was that people on twitter who can be "piqued" let's say, by a particular thing, are being deliberately 'piqued' by the algorithm to drive "engagement", so much so that even a completely unrelated-to-anything essentially private conversation will get piled on by warring partisans like flies on shit.
Whatever your thoughts are on COVID are irrelevant - we are discussing Twitter in this thread, NOT COVID. But even in the absence of a feed-optimisation algorithm, you have latched on to this trigger subject, and - consciously or not - attempted to divide the room.
This is the toxcicity of social media in a nutshell - it poisons all rational discussions to turn them into bipolar flame-wars, 'optimising' that poison to the point where Godwin's Law is invoked as fast as possible.
This is the toxcicity of social media in a nutshell - it poisons all rational discussions to turn them into bipolar flame-wars, 'optimising' that poison to the point where Godwin's Law is invoked as fast as possible.
Indeed. And it's not just Twatter. AlphaGoo and FaceMelta all played their part in suppressing and stiffling discussion, debate, and dissent. In a Democratic world, dissent cannot be tolerated. Technology must be utilised to ensure only the correct narratives are released into the wild.
It truly is bizarre that people such as yourself can't see that that was, and still is the problem with the way the media gets manipulated. Or just the way polarisation means that people can't even engage in rational discussion without whacking themselves in the face with a bat. An especially ironic analogy, if it turns out that Covid derived from a project to immunise bats.
They were never sold as stopping transmission. I suggest you go and look at the actual paperwork the vaccine manufacturers filed when applying for authorisation. None of them claimed they would stop transmission. They all stated they would reduce the risk of serious illness and death, which they have.
They have actually reduced transmission as a nice side effect. Vaccinated people are usually infections for a shorted period of time. NHS studies when they first started rolling out the vaccine to staff showed that vaccinated staff were less likely to infect unvaccinated people in their household than unvaccinated staff.
They were never sold as stopping transmission. I suggest you go and look at the actual paperwork the vaccine manufacturers filed when applying for authorisation.
Err.. I suggest I've already done that, given I've already pointed out the EUA didn't test transmissability. Research conducted after billions of doses were handed out on the back of billions spent on marketing campaigns did point out that the 'vaccine' appears to have done little to reduce viral load in vaccinated people.
But this example is just too amusing not to cite-
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/11/covid-19-vaccination-spread/
Studies show that people vaccinated against COVID-19 are likely to be less contagious than non-vaccinated people.
This is because vaccinated people carry a viral load in their body that is overall lower than that of unvaccinated people; therefore, the virus cannot be transmitted as effectively.
A vaccinated person is also less likely to contract COVID in the first place.
Vaccination not only makes a person less contagious, but contagious for a shorter time, creating less spread of the virus through a highly vaccinated community.
Which has proven to be wrong on just about every level. But the WEF never has been a 'reliable source'. Downside is of course learning that doing the 'right thing' and taking an experimental vaccine was based on deliberate misinformation may just increase vaccine hesitancy. Scientists, or just people in general who advocated for natural immunity appear to have been correct, but may still have been banned from their work, or just 'social' media.
At the tech level, this misinformation was also used to monitor 'compliance', or gullibility-
https://reclaimthenet.org/us-analytics-firm-covid-19-decree-violation-scores/
Voter analytics firm PredictWise harvested location data from tens of millions of US cellphones during the initial Covid lockdown months and used this data to assign a “Covid-19 decree violation” score to the people associated with the phones.
These Covid-19 decree violation scores were calculated by analyzing nearly two billion global positioning system (GPS) pings to get “real-time, ultra-granular locations patterns.” People who were “on the go more often than their neighbors” were given a high Covid-19 decree violation score while those who mostly or always stayed at home were given a low Covid-19 decree violation score.
That sounds like an incredibly useful tool, if you're an incredibly authoritarian government that thinks 'social credit' systems are a GoodThing(tm). Obey, citizen. Big Brother really is watching you..
"!Which has proven to be wrong on just about every level."
where? Citations please or you're just another conspiracy loon. I have my suspicions which is correct. You condemn twitter etc for "suppressing dissention" as if people should be forced to listen to the ludicrous diatribe of the antivaxxers or covid conspiracy nuts. Invermectin is a horse dewormer, yes its an antiparasitic drug - covid is not a parasite. The "studies" that showed invermectin had any effect at all were dodgy to say the least. Still, better than drinking bleach or injecting sunlight.
"Faucci and Biden have had Covid multiple times, despite being heavily vaxxed."
Why didn't you include Trump in that? he had and he was heavily "vaxxed" too.
On the other hand, I've never knowingly had it and I got all the vaccinations too. But then I;m not in public life and wasn't meeting many people on a daily basis, sharing rooms with them etc.
And that, my friend is all the fault of Twitter, of course.
See, I can make spurious links and allegations totally off topic too! Or, in this case, getting back on topic
Why didn't you include Trump in that? he had and he was heavily "vaxxed" too.
Mrs Higgins at =23 did as well, now you mention it. The public figures just help demonstrate how ineffective the policy may have been at preventing transmission, especially given those figures were heavily shielded.
See, I can make spurious links and allegations totally off topic too! Or, in this case, getting back on topic
My points have been mostly on-topic, and demonstrate the power of social media in narrative shaping. Zuck explained how FaceMelta's policy was dictated to them so they could correctly manage the flow of information. Twatter presumably did the same, along with AlphaGoo. All of which swiftly censored anyone challenging the narrative. It's clear many here believe one viewpoint, because that's the viewpoint they've been conditioned to believe by these media companies and narrative managers.
For Twatter, there's also been a great example of the problem in their 'open letter' ahead of Musk assuming control. Laying off up to 75% of employees "will hurt Twitter's ability to serve the public conversation", by censoring and banning viewpoints they disagree with. They're also "helping to uplift independent journalism in Ukraine and Iran, as well as powering social movements around the world."
Providing that's 'independent' journalism the Twatterati agree with, because if it isn't, those independent journalists will be deplatformed. They really don't seem to understand that a conversation is a two-way thing, and all they're doing is creating the digital equivalent of Speaker's Corner where Twats can be talked to, but can't answer back. Or it's a slowly emptying echo chamber. The quarterly filings of most of these anti-social media companies seem to be showing this effect.
I don't think your post will age well AC.
I'm not sure exactly what you think is "mildly unhinged nonsense"? They really aren't vaccines, they are non sterilising. If you get a polio vaccine it stops you getting it and it stops you passing it on. Without this there is no basis for mandating it, which has now been proven in law in New York where they have had to re-instate workers with back pay.
It seems like what you call "mildly unhinged nonsense" is just things you don't agree with, without giving any actual argument.
My point is the original poster was getting annoyed by conspiracy theories, but many of them have turned out to be true (or at least plausible).
What's your alternative to a "weakly-moderated social platform"? Who gets to decide what is truth? Fact checkers who are funded by pharma companies? That's all very well, until you have an opinion which gets fact checked.
" They really aren't vaccines, they are non sterilising"
A vaccine primes the immune system to more effectively act against a pathogen. They are not a set of miniature Terminators that are for ever circulating in your blood if you get the vaccine.
To give you a crude analogy: they are teaching the Bandidos bikers how an Hells Angels logo looks, so that they can start shooting quicker if they meet someone wearing one.
Unless you have a seriously compromised immune system you are basically carrying around a long list of pathogens (or rather how small parts of them "look"), that are on your immune system "kill on sight" list. All a vaccine does is, in more or less clever ways, add a pathogen signature to that list before you encounter it for real. Which allows the immune to start working faster.
A vaccine primes the immune system to more effectively act against a pathogen. They are not a set of miniature Terminators that are for ever circulating in your blood if you get the vaccine.
Yes, exactly! This is why we have to get MMR, TB etc boosters at $100 a shot every 3 months.. Isn't it?
(Ok, so there's reality vs drug dealer's marketing. So flu jabs do need to be administered more frequently because the virus mutates, and the annual winter vaccines are tailored to the flu strain predicted to be in circulation that year. Other viruses may not mutate as rapidly, at least not without a lil human intervention, so they're more 'one and done' immune system training aids.)
> they're more 'one and done' immune system training aids
What are these magic 'one and done' things?
Or did you not finish your full course of Polio vaccinations? Hepatitis A and B? MMR?
Are you up to date with your Tetanus booster?
Boosters for Meningitis, Shingles and others are indicated if you are in an at risk group.
Maybe you need to check with your doctor...
Or did you not finish your full course of Polio vaccinations? Hepatitis A and B? MMR?
Of course not. Nor did I finish my smallpox, anthrax, yellow fever, scarlet fever and probably some others. But that's whataboutery, given the diseases, risks, vaccines and evidence are all different. Especially as none of them are mRNA vaccines, those previously having been deemed too risky. MMR's a good example of 'one and done' given it's the good'ol triple jab. Two doses from your friendly school nurse and you're pretty much set for life.
Unlike with Covid where it's $100 every 3 months, and vaccinated people still seem to get ill. Again it's more about the science, not the distorted media interpretation of The Science. The current vaccines just don't appear to be anywhere near as effective as vaccines for other illnesses, and if they do nothing, or very little to prevent transmission, don't do much to protect the herd either.
It's one of those 'social good' things where the way anti-social media companies lied, and continue to lie about the risks and effectiveness of vaccines, and the extremely expensive and disruptive policies. Some people were already 'anti-vax' or vaccine hesitant before this fiasco, and more people probably are now. It's been great for drug dealers, but a public health disaster otherwise.
Are you up to date with your Tetanus booster?
Funny you should mention that, but probably not. But one of those diseases where I know I can get quick & effective treatment, should I need it.
> Of course not. Nor did I finish my smallpox, anthrax, yellow fever, scarlet fever and probably some others
Well, that was pretty damn brave of you. Clap clap. /s
> But that's whataboutery
Nope. I responded solely to your claim that the vaccines other than Covid are 'one and done', by pointing out that none of the existing vaccines, most particularly the ones that one would expect anyone to have (barring special circumstances or inadequate health care)
> Especially as none of them are mRNA vaccines, those previously having been deemed too risky
Nope. At the point that all of the vaccines I'd mentioned were developed, mRNA was simply not available. Not "deemed too risky" but simply non-existent. Not that mRNA is necessarily a good approach for all of them.
> MMR's a good example of 'one and done' ... Two doses from your friendly school nurse and you're pretty much set for life
Well, as you seem to have missed this at school, but 2 is not 1. Plus "pretty much set for life" - ah, again, nope. That gives you "good enough for the good times" coverage, but if there are multiple outbreaks close to you then you should be asking about boosters here as well.
> The current vaccines just don't appear to be anywhere near as effective as vaccines for other illnesses
We have been *incredibly* lucky with the efficacy of some of the vaccines available, but the majority of the apparent effectiveness is down to the fact that we've got so many of these diseases under reasonable control that the general level of vaccination is good enough at protection given the rate of infection.
The rate of infection of Covid is massive, absolutely massive, compared to pretty much everything else other than the common cold. The Covid vaccines are doing a damn good job under the circumstances.
> Tetanus ... one of those diseases where I know I can get quick & effective treatment, should I need it
The first step of which is a good hearty jab of - guess what? With a bloody big needle, by that point. Good luck.
"the original poster was getting annoyed by conspiracy theories, but many of them have turned out to be true "
Which ones? covid was made in a lab? Nope
The vaccine was a fake? Nope
The election was stolen? Nope
Feel free to list the proven conspiracy theories, with citations from an independent source (ie not Fox news or Breitbart)
How are the COVID19 vaccines not technically vaccines? They stimulate your immune system to produce antibodies to fight a pathogen. That is the literal definition of a vaccine.
No vaccine manufacturer ever claimed that they would stop transmission. The objective was to limit serious illness and death, which they have dramatically achieved. The fact that they can reduce transmission is a bonus. Early studies showed they did this. Vaccinated NHS staff were less likely to infect people in the same household than unvaccinated staff. They are probably less effective at this now with the much more transmissible variants we have now. Hopefully new Omicron specific vaccines can improve things.
I have personally had 4 shots. 2 x Astra for initial course, followed by Pfizer and Moderna boosters. I will have further boosters as required, especially once new variant specific vaccines are available. I also contracted COVID between my 3rd and 4th doses and just had a sniffle and body aches for a day.
I also contracted COVID between my 3rd and 4th doses and just had a sniffle and body aches for a day.
Good for you citizen! Have a work permit! You can now pay tax, shop, travel, visit pubs, clubs, and leisure facilities! You may enjoy all the rights and privileges being denied to those filthy unvaccinated!
So I didn't bother getting vaccinated. I also tested positive for Covid antibodies, which means at some point, I presumably caught it. I didn't notice. You, on the other hand have no real idea if your vaccine altered your outcome at all. If you were in a high-risk group, there's a small chance (relative risk should be banned in medical statistics, especially marketing) that your vaccines might have reduced the severity. But there's also a risk that it might have caused you harm.
Correct! I have no idea if the vaccine altered the outcome for me. It is possible that I would have been OK without being vaccinated but why take that chance when there are effective and freely available vaccines.
Having antibodies against the virus in advance will have improved my chances. The evidence is overwhelming that the vaccines work. Millions are dead or are suffering the effects of long covid who need not have been if they had been vaccinated. Hospital admissions are much higher amongst the unvaccinated and under vaccinated. Having spoken to ER staff who are at their wits end due to having to comfort people who are dying unnecessarily since they could have very likely avoided it with being vaccinated.
Regarding "high risk" groups. Yes, you are more likely to suffer from COVID if you are older or have other health concerns, but many younger adults and children have been affected by the disease.
As with all medicine, there is the small chance of side effects. However, these are now well known so can be looked for and treated. There is a much higher chance of negative effects from COVID, even if it doesn't kill me.
Since I know nothing I can say will change your worldview, then you can continue in your belief. I will continue to listen to health professionals instead of random morons on social media trying to convince people that vaccines are some bizarre plot by WEF to depopulate the planet.
I despair that medicine has become so politicised.
why take that chance when there are effective and freely available vaccines.
Because you have no idea how effective they may be, or what the adverse effects may be? Standard risk assessment stuff. Or just ignore that, get the jab because it'll prevent you spreading the 'vid! Strange the way since the Pfizer exec pointed out effects on transmission weren't actually tested, "fact checkers" have rushed to change the narrative. It was never meant to reduce transmission, despite all the steps governments took to tell people it would/might or just deny services to the unvaccinated. Governments lie all the time, so do self-appointed 'fact checkers' like the idiots at Twitter who are about to get laid off.
The evidence is overwhelming that the vaccines work.
In general, yes they do. In this specific case, the evidence is overwhelming that they don't work very well, and certainly not as well as claimed.
but many younger adults and children have been affected by the disease.
And how many may have been affected by the vaccine? Especially given young adults and children were already at extremely low risk anyway. And quite a few who were affected by the disease also had severe co-morbidities that put them at much higher risk. But ignore all that boring sciencey stuff, get your under-5s vaccinated now! And then make sure they're signed up for our quarterly booster shots!
I will continue to listen to health professionals instead of random morons on social media trying to convince people that vaccines are some bizarre plot by WEF to depopulate the planet.
See? I knew citing the WEF would get results! The depopulation is only a secondary effect. The primary objective was to identify the gullible and easily fooled. It's been positively Darwinian in that respect as a way to elimate the stoopid gene. Or that could be a conspiracy, and the real objective is to identify the dissenters who didn't roll up their sleeves on command.
Fertility is a more interesting subject given there have been a few papers regarding possible effects on miscarriages, or infertility in general. Like this one-
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33937-y
Data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in early pregnancy are limited.
But over time, more data will become available. A pregnant wom.. I mean person with a womb may have had their initial genetic alteration and up to 3 boosters by the time their kids are born. The effect on those kids is equally unknown, although spike proteins in breast milk have been identified, which wasn't really supposed to happen. Effects on general fertility and birth rates are equally unknown. Effects on <5yr olds immune system and reproductive health are unknown.
For you though, it's too late. For me, I'm content to follow the science (ie not Twitter) and serve humanity as part of the control group. That think most medical experiments are supposed to have..
"And then make sure they're signed up for our quarterly booster shots!"
You sound like you are talking from the perspective of being somewhere in the world where you have to pay for these vaccines.
Is that the case? It would help explain some of what you say. I wonder if anyone has done any research on the levels of vaccine rejection based on whether they cost money directly from the recipient and how the levels of "anti-vax" in various countries measure against the levels of encouragement to have them, eg is it strongly recommended or even mandatory and does that lead to conflict in certain circles over "rights" and "freeeeeedommmmmm!" and not necessarily anti-vax per se, just anti-authority.
I did notice here in the UK, the graphs showing first dose take up suddenly rises again as each holiday period comes around since countries started allowing tourist flights back in but demanded proof of vaccination on entry. That seems to be a strong indiction of people being anti-vax "just because" but once it affected their holidays, minds were changed. A true anti-vaxxor would not travel under those circumstances.
The evidence is overwhelming that the vaccines work. The statistics are stark. If you are vaccinated, you are substantially less likely to end up in hospital or dead.
I am aware of possible adverse effects. Before each vaccine I am given a leaflet explaining all the known adverse effects of that particular vaccine, what to look for and how they are treated. I have also looked into the statistics of adverse effects of the vaccine's vs adverse effects from COVID19. They show that the risk from the vaccine is insignificant compared to the risks from the disease. My personal risk assessment therefore came down on the side of being vaccinated. Yours was obviously different.
Since I have had all the mainstream vaccinations available here at the moment with no adverse effects, then it has proven to be a correct assessment. I have boosted immunity to the disease and no adverse effects. My family have also all been vaccinated. No adverse effects among them. In fact, I don't know anybody in my extended friends and work circle in either the UK, US, Canada or Australia who has suffered any adverse effects after vaccination. I do, however, know plenty of people who have died or ended up in hospital when they were not vaccinated.
If you have been led to believe that the vaccines will stop transmission, then you have been misinformed. None of the vaccine manufacturers claimed this on their paperwork submitted to health authorities anywhere in the world. Before any vaccines were even available here in Australia, we had respected health professionals like Dr Norman Swann and Dr Raina Macintyre appearing on TV explaining that they were designed to prevent serious illness and death. They clearly stated that no-one could say if they would have any impact on transmission or lead to herd immunity, since that is not what they were designed to do. The fact that they have led to reduced transmission is therefore a bonus.
https://youtu.be/bGTML9R5as8?t=64
https://youtu.be/jDtUWXOmLLg?t=399
https://youtu.be/AK8OB8wlMGA?t=484
Fauci: "The risk is extremely low of getting infected, of getting sick or of transmitting to anybody else, full stop."
His own words. Hard to get clearer than that.
Pfizer tweeted in Jan 2021 "the ability to vaccinate at speed to gain herd immunity and stop transmission is our highest priority.”
The Pfizer CEO:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1582045307491487744
"If they don't vaccinate they will become the weak link that allows this virus to replicate"
Also odd how in Australia most of the cases and deaths started in early 2022 long after the vaxx was rolled out.
Nothing odd about the COVID19 deaths in Australia. Border control and other suppression measures were scaled back and then ended as vaccination levels increased. This led to the virus spreading among the population. 86% of the population have had the first 2 doses and only about half of the population have had boosters. Hospitalisations and deaths are overwhelmingly among the unvaccinated and under vaccinated.
We could have continued with suppression measures and kept death rates down, but eventually you have to make a risk/benefit call once the majority of the population are vaccinated, and vaccination rates are tailing off. The population who have chosen to be vaccinated can't have these restrictions in place indefinitely. People who have chosen not to be vaccinated are aware of the risks and potential consequences. They can easily protect themselves as the vaccine is available for free from a wide range of GPs and pharmacies. Even better protection is available now as the Omicron variant vaccine is now in use.
"your risk of death was nine times higher with vaccine."
I hope your job doesn't involve basic arithmetic. Are people really this thick?
50% of deaths occurred in 90% of the population who were vaccinated.
50% of deaths occurred in 10% of the population who weren't vaccinated.
(according to figures that you claim to have seen)
So which group had the higher percentage of deaths from covid, vaccinated or unvaccinated?
" I also tested positive for Covid antibodies, which means at some point, I presumably caught it. I didn't notice"
And right there, in one sentence, is the reason a lot of people DID catch it and die. You were non symptomatic, presumably never bothered with any of the social distancing and masks because you were sticking it to the man, right? What a hero. A shame you probably passed it on to dozens of other people who in turn passed it to elderly or immuno compromised friends and relatives, who will have had serious or even terminal consequences.
As usual, the "I'm a rebel because the MSM media dont own me" type is revealed to be nothing more than a self-entitled, selfish idiot.
"And it seems that any benefit seems to wear off to zero after about 5 months. Having had two doses, it does feel like I've been mis-sold, and I won't be risking any more (of this particular therapy), although I'll still take others as required if they give a benefit."
That makes no sense. There clearly IS a benefit to being vaccinated, even if it's relatively short term protection. You've had two injections already with no ill effects, so why would you refuse further protection? You're argument seems to be that you personally don't know if the vaccine helped you or not. Since it didn't harm you, and after what are probably the worlds largest ever clinical trials for the various vaccines, the risk of the vaccine to you is incredibly low, so what risk exactly are trying to mitigate?
2 members of my close family had fairly serious side effects. I personally had nothing, but I also had nothing much when I caught Covid.
Why would I want "further protection", every year (or 5 months?) when I barely noticed I had it. I might be a bit worse without it (assuming I happen to catch it next time within 2 or 3 months of having the vaccine - because by month 4 or 5 it's essentially down to zero benefit)
If I was over 70 or had other comorbidities, I would probably take it. But right now I'm fit and healthy.
Also, it seriously feels like the adverse reactions are being ignored or attributed to other things. I'm sceptical about Big Money influencing politicians to quietly ignore adverse reactions.
I also feel like I'm being coerced into taking it, which makes me want to have it even less.
It feels like Pfizer profits (and other big pharma) have too much influence. History has taught me that much. They don't have the best track record.
Hmm... Pfizer and Moderna profits... you hear all the screeching about energy companies making 'excess profits' and how we must tax them now. Well we all funded Pfizer and moderna's excess profits through taxes and now inflation thanks to the money printing.
"Also, it seriously feels like the adverse reactions are being ignored or attributed to other things. I'm sceptical about Big Money influencing politicians to quietly ignore adverse reactions."
If you are not aware, the most widely used COVID19 vaccine in the world is Astra Zenica Vaxzevria. This was developed at Oxford University and is being produced at cost. No profit so no big money influence there.
While I can't comment on other countries, here in Australia side effects are not ignored. Before every vaccine dose I fill out a health questionnaire to identify if I have any existing conditions that might make me more prone to known adverse effects. I am also given a leaflet detailing all the effects, the symptoms to look out for and what treatments are available.
Most people will either have no effects at all, or mild aches. The serious adverse effects (clotting from Astra, heart issues from mRNA vaccines) are barely measurable in the statistics and you are much more likely to suffer these same health consequences from contracting COVID.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Quite honestly, I think Twitter is over. It’s being ghosted because it’s no longer a nice platform to interact with. Simple as that!""
Twitter, as way of keeping in touch with companies or officialdom, was reletively useful when SMS was all you had for data while out and about, likewise with "feature" phones that really didn't do a good job[1] of internet access of we browser, but when smartphones came along, and especially now they are more or less ubiquitous, Twitter is utterly pointless from the perspective of business and officialdom. If we need to find out something while on the move, just visit the website or email them. No need at all for a limited text length medium based on SMS technology and limits.
[1] I'm being generous here :-)
"I’d delete my account if it didn’t contain a few obscure friends and family members who I’d entirely lose touch with if I do"
If my friends and family can't simply send an email or call me on the phone, I'm not going to make an accommodation to keep in touch with them. I don't even like Text so, of course, some sort of corporate advertising firm mediating my communications is right out.
Please Elon... make it happen.
but it won't. With Truth (sic) social about to go trump-up and Parler soon to follow suit thanks to Kanye's big mouth there is just Gab and Frank Social left for the right-wing loonies to spread their garbage.
Elon will have to monetize Twatter as fast as possible before the users quit. He needs to get those billions back ASAP. How else will he fund the rocket to mars for him and his pal Trump who clearly wants to be the first person to play golf on Mars.
At least half of them would leave, along with all the major advertisers. There's a reason why Parlor and Trump Social can't make any money, no major company wants to risk the brand damage of having their ads appear next to Kanye's next anti Jewish hate tweet or Trump calling for another insurrection party.
I wouldn't be surprised if next week Elon announces that Kanye and Trump are being re-instated by Twitter, followed by the largest social media mass defection that has ever been seen. It would be like what happened with Myspace, but take place in 3-5 days instead of 3-5 years and be done with many loudly announced bangs, not a quiet whimper.
I've got my popcorn ready, this carnage should be fun to watch! Never watched someone publicly light $44 billion on fire before.
I deleted my account a few months ago. What finally made me ditch my account is when they introduced topics and bulk subscribed me to hundreds of them completely flooding my feed. You had to remove each one at a time.
There are still a few people I like to follow. Twitter must have realized a bunch of people were doing this because after you scroll past a few posts on the web the UI get locked and you are prompted to log in.
They also did it when they realized that you could view NSFW content without having to log in, so the account requirement is also acting as an age gate.
Twitter's UI is almost as badly broken as Failbook's, which I somehow managed to get my account on there suspended trying to turn off more of their in-line advertising malarky. Good riddence to it at least.
"It spreads the risk."
If you borrow £1,000 and can't pay it back, you have a problem. If you borrow £1,000,000 and can't pay it back, the bank has a problem. The difference is that in the latter case, they'll work with you. In the former case, they'll turn you over to some collection agency to make your life hell.
Twitter has limits on how much stock execs can sell at any given time, if he starts offloading a bunch of stock the price starts going down, he doesn't want to dilute his controlling share of Tesla by selling too many shares, and he's betting on Tesla stock going up at a higher marginal rate than the interest he's paying on the bank loans.
The rich never risk their own capital (or only a little bit). They leave it to others to take the risk of losing their pants when the investment goes titsup. How else do they keep their wealth?
Just look at how much Marjorie 'Jewish Space Lasers' Taylor Greene has lost on Truth Social. All because her proxy husband Donald J Trump was set to make 200-400 million on the deal, she wanted a bit of that action. Too bad it all failed.
I just created a twitter account to see what all the fuss is about, but had to abandon the sign-up process. It wanted me to select a minimum of 3 areas of interest from a small list of interests. I selected science but the site insisted I picked two more "interests" from the list of topics that I had little or no interest in. So gave up there and then and abandoned the screen as it looks like it would just want to spam me with irrelevant topics.
So gave up there and then and abandoned the screen as it looks like it would just want to spam me with irrelevant topics.
Social media does that a lot. YT's been busy doing it to me at the moment by promoting cricket. No idea why as I have no interest in cricket, unless I'm at a match and there's an open bar. Plus it seems the wrong time of year outside Australia. Some day, some social media company will figure out that giving users control over what's promoted to them might actually increase engagement, rather than decrease it.
"I just created a twitter account to see what all the fuss is about, but had to abandon the sign-up process. It wanted me to select a minimum of 3 areas of interest from a small list of interests. I selected science but the site insisted I picked two more "interests" from the list of topics that I had little or no interest in."
I don't think that choosing 3 things is a too unreasonable 'starting point' as it acts as an initial 'pump primer' so that you start seeing some things actually of interest to you in your feed after you have signed up, otherwise how would you know who to start following (unless you know people already on Twitter)? You can always remove those topics later, if there really aren't three things that you are interested in.
Where it has gone wrong is indeed the recent thing where Twitter starts endlessly spamming you with "Here's tweets about topic X" (for multiple topics) which you have never expressed any interest in, and you have to try to find a way to suppress this. They seem to have completely forgotten that once you have actually got started, you'll start to also see posts that people you follow have liked or retweeted, and you can gradually, and naturally, grow your circle from there. It's the difference between seeing another book in the bookshop and thinking it might be interesting, and the bookshop sending all of its stock to you in a skip and then tipping it all out on your head at once… They seem to have become so obsessed with 'growth' and 'engagement' (hah) that they have forgotten that that is not how human attention spans, and ability to absorb information, actually work.
"I don't think that choosing 3 things is a too unreasonable 'starting point' as it acts as an initial 'pump primer' so that you start seeing some things actually of interest..."
There really weren't three areas of "interest" in their general list that interested me. That is why I didn't proceed with the sign-up process. I know a number of scientists and scientific organisations that I'd like to follow on twitter, but not if I have to wade through a load of unwanted topics I have zero interest in. On the basis that I only wanted one topic (science), by ticking two other topics, more or less at random, would have presumably meant that at least 2/3 of my feed would be spam.
"I don't think that choosing 3 things is a too unreasonable 'starting point'"
I've never signed up to Twitter, but if as the OP says, there was a relatively short list of "interests" to choose from and one was "science" then that strongly implies that each "interest" is a hugely broad choice in itself, so having to choose three such broad "topic" is highly likely to inundate you with far more stuff you are not interested in that stuff you are interested in.
Maybe what they need to do is show a short list of interests where you can either choose the listed broad interest or drill down into the broad interest to whatever level of detail you want to choose. A decision tree where you stop at whatever depth you choose when you feel the area of choice is a as broad or narrow as you want. After all, not everyone interested in "science" has the same scientific interests. Is a biologist going to want a feed filled with the latest astrophysics or vulcanology news? Maybe, maybe not. So allow that choice from the start.
Yes I agree. Science is a very broad interest area in itself. I shouldn't have to select other topics like "Sport" or "Fashion" etc that I have absolutely no interest in, just to get the sign-up process to complete. I get the impression from what other posters have said, that with Twitter in general it is more a case of "eat what you are given and stop moaning". Others have said that with the new "bulk spam", you'll spend more time trying to get rid of unwanted crap from your feed than actually reading the stuff you actually want to follow. Twitter hasn't inspired me to get involved, quite the opposite.
"I don't think that choosing 3 things is a too unreasonable 'starting point' as it acts as an initial 'pump primer' so that you start seeing some things actually of interest to you in your feed after you have signed up,"
I think it is unreasonable for two reasons. First, the platform allows the user to follow specific sources. You don't need them to throw stuff at you. You can pick what you want manually. Second, requiring you to pick three items from a short list means you're very likely to get stuff you don't care about. These are like if you went into a library, and before you were allowed to look at any list, they required you to select three of their twelve categories and started choosing books from those sections and handing them to you whether you wanted them or not.
I don't have a problem with Twitter wanting to recommend things you didn't ask for (well that's not true as it would probably annoy me), but they can do that by looking at what you like. You'll be much better at recommending books to me if I give you a list of the last ten I enjoyed than if I pick from a short list of very broad topics.
For example, I like science fiction, but not all of it. I like science fiction where it doesn't make up too much, which means it usually occurs on earth in the present or near future with a few modifications. Hard sci-fi in space is good too. Fantasy in space with lasers instead of swords and aliens with way too many Xs in their names instead of dragons is often shoved in that section too, but I don't want to read it. Similarly, I know people who really like the other kind and don't enjoy books that spend chapters 4-6 explaining how the fusion reactors work including a discussion of required shielding materials and manufacturing, so if I'm recommending books to them, I can eliminate those from my list.
There are a lot of accounts that are automated and designed to be that way. One avenue for delivering short amounts of public information from a program has been to tweet it, making a feed that other interested people or programs can parse without having to do the distribution (such as having an API to retrieve it or an RSS feed). Obviously you can't advertise to a bot and expect anything. Those would be most of the non-monetizable users. They may also include users in locations where they don't sell advertising yet or users attached to large institutions where showing an ad to the person who happens to be posting today might not be very useful, but I don't know how far they go to find who is truly monetizable.
It has to be pointed out that just because an account isn't monetizable doesn't mean it isn't a good thing for Twitter. There can be accounts that just watch US politicians and look for keywords or hashtags and put the information in a database to search later should those tweets go missing. Many "news" articles are just screen shots or links of tweets rather than proper journalism. Another type of bot might keep people engaged on the site longer and, therefore, keep them looking at ads longer or more of them. It would be a mistake to state that all bots are bad. Elon might want to take a lesson and have Twitter running a few bots of their own to provide information services to people that will pay them.
It is my guess that from today and for the next few weeks that Twitter is going to get ghosted by a lot of people. This is going to be MySpace type of collapse, with the difference it is not going to be replaced with a new social media. I for sure not going to sign up to anything new. That time has passed.
The water is fine outside of social media! It's not so much the "layout" or how twitter spams you, or whatever. It's that it's designed to get you hooked to something that you will ultimately gain nothing from. Even worse, they have the ability to control what you see, so that they can push your mind in whatever direction they want, just like FB, just like Instagram, just like Reddit, just like Tik Tok...
> The water is fine outside of social media
If only some people didn't try so hard to muddy the water.
The wife got fed up trying to find information about a local film festival that starts - today. They do have a website, which tells us that the details (like, the venue!) will be released soon, but it does give an email. The reply basically said: they didn't see the need to put anything on the website because all the details were being "released on social media". The End.
No idea which social media, which page or which hashtag or ... just "on social media". Did find some tweets that we (now) know to be relevant, but those basically said "yay, Fred's short film will be in the festival now". When? Where?
Wish this was a rare occurrence, but nope.
Bleeping social media mindset.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
