Hacker News Reader

Comment by bmarquez | Hacker News Reader

From the article: "While there is indeed much disagreement in the medical community about the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in treating coronavirus, there have been studies reported by mainstream outlets like CNN, suggesting that it may in fact by an effective treatment."

Is hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness questionable? Yes.

Should Twitter be the one to make that judgement call and block a video from medical professionals? No.

Can Twitter do this? Sadly, until Section 230 is reformed, Yes.

View on HN

The video didn't just suggest that it might be an effective treatment, it claimed that hydroxychloroquine is a cure.

"This virus has a cure. It's called hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and Zithromax. I know people want to talk about a mask. Hello. You don't need mask. There is a cure."

These "medical professionals" are quacks

What? How can you not trust the person that runs https://archive.fo/G7wtb ?

The way you're framing this is disingenuous at best. This isn't a disagreement between medical professionals. The person he linked to isn't some respected pathologist, it's a person I can only classify as borderline if not outright insane.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/stella-immanuel-trumps-new-cov...

> Should Twitter be the one to make that judgement call and block a video from medical professionals? No.

Why not? Their house, their rules.

"Should" != "Could"

Could they do it? Yes. Their house, their rules.

Should they do it? Well, that is a business decision.

It can be their rules, but then they should not be able to advertise things like this:

"Free expression is a human right. Everyone has a voice, and the right to use it. On Twitter, you should feel safe expressing your unique point of view with every Tweet – and it’s our job to make that happen."

"Twitter stands for freedom of expression for everyone."

"We do not take sides. We show sides. Every side."

"We treat everyone equally: the same Twitter Rules apply to all."

"we allow strong opinions and controversial views."

I kind of agree with you, but also disagree somewhat. I think these statements are aspirational in that they reflect Twitter's general principles. But when the rubber hits the road, there are practical limits and exceptions that you make to preserve what you perceive as the greater good and to make sure that the potential harms that come with unrestrained freedom don't outweigh the benefits. I don't think Twitter wants their principles to constitute a suicide pact.

Twitter should prevent you from reading instructions on how to make chlorine gas that pretend you aren't actually going to make chlorine gas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com