Giuliani's Twitter account suspended. Should all Social Media follow Twitter's policy lead?

There are several potential problems in Giuliani's tweet. One is explained as quoted on the OP Dr. Dena Grayson. Another is that it might create a shortage of a medication that is needed by patients like Lupus patients. But the ones that most worries researchers. have to do with the fact that a virus can mutate and become immune to a promising drug. The way medical professionals avoid this is by prescribing a "cocktail" of medications. So Trump might be single handily rendering the remedy useless.

We don't know at this point if Chloroquine or Hydroxychloroquine have helped cure anybody infected, or has killed anybody infected. We won't know until actual scientific tests render dependable results.

 

Do svidaniya comrade.

 

The prescriptions are written by doctors. Trump can give us hope. But he cannot prescribe medications.

 

But who decides what is false or misleading information? Twitter executives? This is an especially valid question with regard to COVID since Twitter, like everyone else in the world does not have any more than a rudimentary sketchy understanding of COVID or how to medicate against it. Twitter does not know with any certainty whether Giuliani's comments were incorrect or even misleading. Your idea that someone can censor media postings, other that maybe in clear egregious circumstances, tramples the first amendment to death,

 

Twitter.

Seriously people.

Twitter is cyberclownshoes.

Choose reality.

 

I agree, all or none.

 

What this says is that there is a ton of uncertainty with the drugs effectiveness against COVID, and somehow that is enough that we should stifle anyone from expressing their opinion. Dr. Grayson says there might be side effects -- like in every drug known and used -- another big WHOOOPEE. Dr. Grayson also says that we need to go slow and stifle anyone but us experts from talking about it because it might be unsafe, despite the fact that the drug has been in use for decades. She is probably correct that its use should be limited to a doctor's prescription. That raises the question why Cuomo decreed that doctors cannot prescribe it.

 

Science!

Therefore, anybody whoclaims to have it is giving out false or misleading information. Especially somebody who has no expertise whatsoever on the matter like Giuliani.

Definitely misleading, as there is no scientific data to support them.

You don't think that 15 thousand is egregious enough? In what way does it trample the 1st A? Could you quote what part it "tramples"?

 

Absolutely!!!

.One thing we have learned is how bad information about reality comes to be. Wishful thinking is very high in the list. That's the reason why we created Modern Science (Experimental Science). And human progress has skyrocketed since we did.

So science has proven its worth. Anything you care to propose... we'll have to see it do the same.

Yeah! WHOOOPEEEE! Every single drug has side effects... This drug has side effects. Therefore... Let's move it to the candy aisle!!!

Great logic!

Or are you saying that I am not allowed to miss your point on purpose just because you miss mine on purpose?

Yes! In the in the middle of a pandemic (always... but especially in the middle of a pandemic) only experts know how to talk about cures. Because they know how to talk about cures. There is a reason why you need a medical licence to be able to sign prescriptions. The reason is that experts know the consequences. And what Trump and Giuliani are doing is abusing people's fear of the current pandemic to try to score political points. And that is dishonest and immoral.

And all Social Media should be stopping this while we are in this pandemic. It's the moral thing to do.

No idea what you're talking about. But if it's intended to somehow counteract the damage that Trump and Giuliani and Fox have done, I'm all for it.

During World War II, Nazi collaborators in America were arrested. Nothing less should happen to Coronavirus collaborators in this war. Even if the worst collaborator is this... President*.

 

You have me stymied there. Can you explain with any rationality or even reverie how "science" can censor anything??????? I think you meant to say is that the censorship would be provided by some yokel claiming to cite science.

Let's see. If you keep someone from stating anything, unless it is clearly obvious and egregious, on a public forum, you have taken away -- trampled -- his first amendment rights..... DUH!

 

You just nimbly but not too subtly glossed right over my saying that the drug needs to be prescribed, huh????

Every person that I know talks about cures without reservation, and has been doing it forever. So get off your crapola wagon about only "experts" can talk about cures. Signing prescriptions? As I said certainly only designated experts.

And so goes any semblance of your rationality and credibility right into the toilet.

RodB said: ↑
She is probably correct that its use should be limited to a doctor's prescription. That raises the question why Cuomo decreed that doctors cannot prescribe it.

"On March 24, Cuomo issued Executive Order #202.10 titled, “Continuing Temporary Suspension and Modification of Laws Relating to the Disaster Emergency” containing, among other items, the directive:

No pharmacist shall dispense hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine except when written as prescribed for an FDA-approved indication; or as part of a state approved clinical trial related to COVID-19 for a patient who has tested positive for COVID-19, with such test result documented as part of the prescription. No other experimental or prophylactic use shall be permitted, and any permitted prescription is limited to one fourteen day prescription with no refills."

and, "NY Gov Cuomo updated an executive order Monday to block pharmacists from filling prescriptions for the drug hydroxychloroquine for any uses not approved by the FDA. That means this NY doctor who successfully treated 350 patients w/ COVID19 can no longer prescribe the drug.

COLLABORATORS?????? Have you totally lost it???

 

Check your question. You didn't ask who does the censoring. My interpretation of your question is that you wanted to know what objective basis would there be for choosing what is censored.

Not sure what you mean. I think your statement might have been distorted by the above miscommunication. Private companies can act as they please. I'm just explaining what they should be based on, if they hope to be consistent.

Yeah... "DUH!"... But I still don't get it. The 1st A only establishes restrictions for Congress. Not for Facebook... or any other privately owned service.

They are in fact limiting freedom of speech. And I think that is wrong in most circumstances because it's an abuse of FCC regulated public communications. But this is screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater. And even Congress can restrict that. However, Congress plays no role in any of this.

 

My question was, and I quote, "But who decides what is false or misleading information? Twitter executives?

 

Just as nimbly you glossed right over Dr. Grayson point that Trump should not be giving medical advice. Except I, not only said I was doing it, but even explained why.

Everybody you know does not say it from the bully pulpit! What you say is disingenuous.

Great! So long as we are in agreement that what Giuliani and Trump are doing is playing politics with people's lives.... we're good. I do not agree that Cuomo is doing the same. And I would tell you if I did, but I just don't.

Look.... let's be clear. I'm not talking about "prescribing". I'm talking about people who are not qualified to give medical advice doing so! And doing it from a position from which they are liable to, unintentionally but out of pure stupidity, convince people to consume things they shouldn't. And do all the other things I mentioned. Trump is. Giulliani is Cuomo is not!

"On March 24, Cuomo issued Executive Order #202.10 titled, “Continuing Temporary Suspension and Modification of Laws Relating to the Disaster Emergency” containing, among other items, the directive:

Correction! a NY doctor who says... and maybe even thinks... he successfully treated 350 patients...

It is no totally impossible, but extremely unlikely that he actually did succeed with the treatment of those 350 patients. But there is no way whatsoever to know for sure. That's the problem with anecdotal evidence: it's useless in what pertains to advancing any rational argument.

My reference to collaborators is directly proportional to whatever you believe of Trump's claim that this pandemic should be treated as a "war". And, just to be clear, I do agree that this pandemic should be treated as a war.

 

Well... I guess your question was much more superficial than I thought, then. So the answer then is: Of course Twitter executives!! Who else? Walmart executives did you think?

I guess I inserted more depth into your question than you intended it to have.

 

Regardless of how you try to spin it, Trump can talk about medicines which might help which does relieve some anxiety. However, the final decision of whether it will be used will come from the patient's doctor. Not from Trump.