How is that damning? Damning of what exactly?
I’m happy to be corrected if I’ve got this wrong as it’s been a while now, but if memory serves, he regularly spread covid misinformation and repeatedly promulgated completely unverified claims without evidence, arguing continuously to let covid rip through the global population directly against WHO advice.
If he broke Twitters Covid misinformation rules, which given his track record is what I expect he did, then surely this is exactly what we should expect to see from any responsible corporation during a global health crisis?
If something genuinely damning comes to light further down the road then I’ll immediately change my opinion on this, but so far, the only bias that these files appear to be uncovering, is a bias towards the truth and a concerted effort to avoid damaging misinformation from gaining too much traction; as such, it’s not particularly surprising that people whose entire popularity and livelihoods rely upon peddling misinformation to people who are not intellectually equipped to recognise it, are all frothy over the contents of the files so far, while to everyone else, all that’s being uncovered are totally reasonable moderation practices against misinformation.
Regardless, I think that it’s not unreasonable to expect that any responsible moderation operation, whether human or automated, is going to get things wrong or make mistakes on occasion, but so far there’s been very little evidence to suggest that even that has happened, let alone any evidence to suggest an inherent bias.
Who knows, perhaps it’s taking them time to go through the data and they're saving the damning stuff for last, but it definitely seems odd that they wouldn’t have led with the smoking gun if it exists.
Last edited:
