Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - AllAroundTheWorld

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 198  Next >
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: January 30, 2023, 08:40:25 PM »
You're right Bill, I can't prove it doesn't exist, but the idea that I need to do so is your logical fault, not my own.
And your logical error is the classic conspiracy theorist tactic of operating in the sceptical context.  You do this with all the evidence which indicates that atomic weapons are a thing, that they've been used twice in anger in living memory and that there have been loads of atomic tests since, all of which have radioactive signatures you wouldn't find in conventional bombs. Then there's the fact that the Hiroshima bomb was the equivalent of 16,000 tons of TNT, not quite sure how the Enola Gay could have transported that. None of the evidence is good enough for you. You dismiss it all.

But you do this selectively.  The stuff you want to believe - that Hiroshima was "just firebombing", you claim things like that without providing any evidence. And then you do a load of wild speculation that if nuclear weapons were a thing then <bad things> would happen. But that is just you speculating, it's not evidence of anything.

So no, you can't prove nuclear weapons don't exist any more than anyone can prove they do - not to the standard you demand. But some evidence for your claims would be nice.

You can use this tactic to believe - or disbelieve - anything you like.

"Kangaroos don't exist."
"Here's a photo of one."
"That's fake."
"OK, here's a video of one"
"I've been to Australia and seen some"
"You're mistaken or lying"
"OK, now we're at the zoo. Look, there's a kangaroo".
"Pah, that's just an animatronic fake".

And so on. You can do this about anything. If you have any good evidence for any of your claims then present it, otherwise it's just you making wild claims to back up your narrative.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Who makes these images?
« on: January 29, 2023, 09:08:47 PM »
Well, that is evidently what happened.
No, that's simply your claim. A claim you have provided no evidence for.
As I said, neither of us know for sure what happened, but your hypothesis is implausible.
The idea they would use images from Star Wars with lightsabers in to train an AI model which is supposed to generate Martian landscapes is ludicrous.

Your brilliant observation boils down to "If they hadn't made a mistake, they wouldn't have a problem to solve". The issue here isn't that you're incorrect - it's that you're stating something that is completely useless.
The issue is the mistake you're claiming they made is implausible. Now, that's subjective of course but your claim that they definitely did that is based on no more evidence than my thought that your claim is ridiculous.

How about we discuss something you didn't make up on the spot? Here, let me get you started: They're competent enough to fool people who aren't particularly bright, or who don't pay particularly much attention. That's generally how conspiracies go, which is also why most of them ultimately fail.
Isn't it strange that the people who spot these "errors" are random internet people who don't have experience in the relevant fields. As I've noted, I posted a thread where 3 VFX artists - people whose literal job is to do this stuff - looked at footage from Apollo and concluded there would have been no way of faking that given the technology at the time. The responses were stuff like "BuT lOoK hOw UnCoMfOrTaBlE tHe AsTrOnAuTs LoOk In ThE nEwS cOnFeReNcE".
You're right in that most people aren't competent. But the people spotting these "mistakes" aren't "competent", they just have a certain mindset and with a large slice of confirmation bias draw conclusions they have no real evidence for.

you're just echoing the fact that you don't personally find a NASA conspiracy to be likely.

And you're just echoing the fact that you personally think that's what happened. I guess we can go round saying "did" / "did not" if you want but it's a bit of a waste of both our times.
I mean, you're obviously not your average internet idiot, but you're talking about this with a confidence you can't possibly have. You could say I'm doing the same but I am at least acknowledge it.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Who makes these images?
« on: January 28, 2023, 10:35:38 PM »
But, to answer your question: "just edit it out" is poor advice here, considering secretagent69's counterpoint - these images are generated en masse, rapidly, and "just editing it out" would either involve manual effort or another layer of software.

You literally just said that it's likely that
"someone would have spotted the lightsabers long before anyone in the public was able to look at them"
So when that happened you're suggesting that they decided to create a whole back story for them rather than changing the images, either by manual work or by tweaking the AI algorithm. The former I'd agree would be a fair amount of work. The latter doesn't sound beyond the wit of man. You seem to be suggesting they used Star Wars images with lightsabers in to train the AI. I mean, they could just...not do that? Why use images from Star Wars anyway? As I've seen other conspiracy theorists point out, Martian terrain doesn't look that different to certain terrains on earth so just use them.

I'll leave out your box set of false equivalence logical fallacies - in each of them you talk about a complicated issue to solve. I'd suggest this is not that difficult to solve. Just don't use images with sodding light-sabers in when you're training AI to generate images of terrain which is supposed to be real and not part of the Star Wars cinematic universe.

Look. We're both speculating here. None of us knows for sure. But the issue with all these things is the claim is that NASA are simultaneously competent enough to generate data from space exploration missions which fools "the world", and they're incompetent enough to make mistakes which random people on the internet can spot. I mean, the moon landings are a good example of that - Jodrell Bank claim to have tracked the Apollo craft, and a Russian unmanned one which was aiming to land before Apollo 11 and steal a march on the Americans. The Australians were relaying signals for the Americans. And none of the major superpowers called the Americans out on the fakery. So NASA were competent enough to fake things well enough to fool all those people (unless some of them were "in on it", I guess). But they were stupid enough to label one of the rocks "C" (as is one of the "Apollo was fake" claims). I mean, really?

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Who makes these images?
« on: January 27, 2023, 04:51:09 PM »
it's not only possible, but in fact very likely, that someone would have spotted the lightsabers long before anyone in the public was able to look at them.
Which leads one to wonder why they would invent a retrospective explanation for them rather than simply editing them out of the picture.
I mean, it's all fake, right? Why leave stuff like that in there?

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Flat Earth AI Poems by ChatGPT
« on: January 27, 2023, 01:47:36 PM »
This is by some distance the best thread on here.
And they are Tom's best posts. Shame it took AI to finally write a decent post from him, but it's a definite step in the right direction.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« on: January 27, 2023, 01:43:15 PM »
You are somehow under the impression a body of water encompassing that many million square miles is going to remain consistently level across it's length and width?
Why wouldn't it if the earth is flat?
Water finds its level is the common FE mantra. Obviously there will be waves and so on, but why wouldn't it be roughly level on a FE?

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Who makes these images?
« on: January 27, 2023, 11:24:02 AM »
It was known for a long time exactly what the sample tubes look like, what they’re made of and what they do. It was already known that they would be deposited on the surface of Mars.

Claiming that “they retconned the story after weird lightsabers showed up!” isn’t a coherent argument.
Remember where you are...

The FE mentality around space exploration seems to be if it's possible it could have been faked then that's good enough. I see very little effort to provide evidence that anything is being faked. Some "reasonable doubt" is good enough. Arguments about the moon landings being faked are a combination of argument from incredulity and ignorance. I created a thread some time ago, a video where 3 VFX artists - people whose literal job it is to do this sort of stuff - looked at some Apollo footage and couldn't see how faking those shots would have been possible with the technology at the time.

The main replies aren't actually a response to the video, they're just the usual "but what about the Van Allen Belts" or vague claims that the astronauts are acting a bit funny and so on.

FE's general response to space exploration is to claim it's all fake, provide no good evidence for that and then try not to think about it. That's how it comes across anyway.
Pete seems to have more interesting ideas about how it could be possible within FET but he's not gone into enough detail to have a sensible conversation about it.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE meteors work
« on: January 10, 2023, 05:17:35 PM »
My complaint about FET isn't that it is incomplete, it's that it doesn't really exist at all. I mean, there's no working map for one thing, that's pretty fundamental.
Look at you. You can't hold your breath for 2 sentences. "Uhhh the problem isn't that it's incomplete, just look at this thing that's necessary for its completion!!!!!".
The issue is that "incomplete" isn't a strong enough word. RET is incomplete, there are things it can't explain. But there's plenty it can and does a good job of modelling. FET doesn't even exist. There is no working model which has any predictive power at all.

Also, your claim that the FE map isn't "working" is entirely misguided; and your claim that it's "fundamental" is pulled out of thin air.
We know how far places are apart, we know the shapes and sizes of land masses. If the earth is flat it should be possible to plot them on a map and it match the reality. The earth is flat, maps are flat. Just scale down. The entire reason that every map of the whole earth is a projection is that maps are flat and the earth isn't, so some distortion has to be introduced. So yes, I regard it as pretty fundamental that there's no working map. If you couldn't make a globe of the earth which accurately depicts land mass shapes and sizes and the distances between them then that would put quite a big dent in the claim that the earth is a globe.
The other option is to deny the known distances I guess, that's the approach Tom seems to take. But that's a bit of a stretch given that there's a whole travel industry predicated on knowing where places are and GPS demonstrably works.

But while FET has some hypotheses which can explain observations, those are often to explain why observations don't match what you'd see were the earth flat.
No. That's just your imagination of the motives behind our observations.
I do at times suspect that you lot are treating this as an academic exercise. You know the earth is a globe, but let's imagine the earth is flat - why does the sun appear to set? Why do objects fall? EA and UA are thus invented to explain those things - things which RET already has explanations for.
But the motive isn't really that important. The point is you guys are simultaneously claiming that observations show the earth is flat and hypothesising mechanisms which explain why observations aren't what you'd expect to see on a flat earth.

you lot are this meme
Nah. That's a straw man. You don't have to explain everything, as discussed RET can't do that.
But you need to explain some things. If your model doesn't explain things better than RET then it's not going to be taken seriously by the scientifically literate.
EA is actually a pretty good explanation for sunset - it's a million times better than "perspective" or some of the other rubbish you see on some FE YouTube channels. But your reasoning about it is circular. The sun sets in your model because the light bends upwards. How do we know light bends upwards? Well, the sun sets, doesn't it?
Now, that might be unfair, but I've yet to see any solid experimental evidence that this phenomena even exists.

And none of your ideas have any predictive power. RET can explain annual meteor showers and predict when they will next occur. FET can't.
Incorrect, especially given that the models don't even differ in this case. You're literally saying that orbital mechanics simultaneously can and can't predict the same phenomenon.
How do the models not differ? The RE model has the earth orbiting the sun because of gravity. The meteors are in a certain part of that orbit so as the earth goes through it we get a meteor shower. In FE the celestial bodies are rotating above us once a day. What's the equivalent annual cycle which would explain the annual meteor showers. I'm not saying none can exist but it can't be identical to RE.

You were the one who raised quantity as a subject. Now you're complaining that I responded to you without changing the subject.
I'm not complaining. You said the FET had been a success, I simply asked by what metric. If your aim is to convince a lot of people then yes, I guess FET has been a success. But that's not what I meant by the model being "widely adopted" - that is not about quantity in terms of your average Joe. A lot of scientifically illiterate people believing in FET and not using it for any practical purpose, instead of believing in RET and not using that for any practical purpose, isn't a model being widely adopted. The model hasn't been adopted by any professionals working in the relevant fields. There are no FE equations one can use to model things and launch satellites.

The "serious scientific community" is the cause of the "depressing" state of the world you're decrying so much. People just aren't interested in pandering to the old guard simply because they're the old guard.
Unsurprisingly, I disagree. People don't need to "pander" to anyone, but people should listen to subject matter experts because...well, they're experts.
If I'm ill I go see a doctor, if my boiler stops working I call a boiler engineer.
Now, experts aren't always right of course, but this growing attitude that the average man in the street knows better than people who have studied in a particular field for years or even decades is ridiculous. That's the state of the world I am depressed by and I don't see how the scientific community have caused that. I'd suggest the cause is the internet, it allows bad ideas to proliferate far more quickly than they ever could before. The free availability of information about any topic is a good thing, but a lot of people have a misplaced confidence in their ability to understand what they're looking at. Googling things is not "doing your own research".
Now, I'm not saying that unswerving, unthinking confidence in experts is a good thing either, but there's surely a sensible middle ground.
Your position, from previous conversations, seems to be that everyone should figure out a model of reality for themselves. That's like saying everyone should build their own house. Sorry, but I don't have the skills. I wouldn't know where to start. There is a right way of building a house so it doesn't fall down, so why not get some people who know what they're doing to do that.

Because you're trying to replace a model which works (for most practical purposes) with one which doesn't.
Incorrect. FE works better than RE.
Counterpoint - no it doesn't. You have no model which has any predictive power so in what way does it "work better"? Give an example.

RE contains unresolveable contradictions, while FE is simply less complete than RE.
What makes you say they're unresolvable?

The latter has been directly observed and multiple technologies which demonstrably work rely on its shape.
Incorrect. They were determined with RE assumptions, and they happen to work.
OK. So GPS works by having a cluster of satellites orbiting the globe. By knowing the positions of some of those satellites and using timestamps you can figure out where you are. Are you suggesting that NASA thought they were putting satellites into orbit around a globe but they're actually just circling over a FE, and all the calculations used to find your position just happen to work out?
And, again, the globe earth has been observed. There are numerous satellites and other craft which have taken photos, there are timelapses of those showing the rotating earth. And the ISS is in orbit as we speak, an object which can be observed from the ground and which ham radio operators have contacted. Again, do NASA just think it's orbiting the globe but it's really just circling above us and all the RE calculations used to get it there just happened to work out despite the earth really being flat? The other option is that the ISS is fake of course, that's a path a lot of FE people go down. But...well, you can see it from the ground so that's a bit of a stretch. Clearly something is up there.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE meteors work
« on: January 09, 2023, 10:28:15 PM »
Your mindset seems to be that because RET in the second sense isn't complete, it must be all wrong.
Well, if it helps at all, that's exactly what your mindset comes across as every time you complain about FET being incomplete, or about it not revolutionarily differing from RET in some aspects.
My complaint about FET isn't that it is incomplete, it's that it doesn't really exist at all. I mean, there's no working map for one thing, that's pretty fundamental. FET is a collection of hypotheses which at times contradict one another. Now I know you've explained that the Wiki is meant to document competing FE ideas, so I guess that's fair enough. But while FET has some hypotheses which can explain observations, those are often to explain why observations don't match what you'd see were the earth flat. And none of your ideas have any predictive power. RET can explain annual meteor showers and predict when they will next occur. FET can't.

It's doing astonishingly well so far.
By what metric? Are you looking for quality or simply quantity? By the latter metric yes, it is doing well. A depressing number of people do now believe the earth is flat. In the same way that a depressing number of people are anti-vaxxers. Conspiracy theories are far easier to spread now the internet is a thing. And the level of scientific literacy amongst the great unwashed is low. So yeah, this is one of the conspiracy theories which has proliferated, we'll probably have to agree to disagree about whether that's a good thing. But you're not getting any traction in the serious scientific community any more than anti-vaxxers are in the serious medical community. Because you're trying to replace a model which works (for most practical purposes) with one which doesn't. And, again, let's not conflate RET in the wider sense with the earth's physical shape. The latter has been directly observed and multiple technologies which demonstrably work rely on its shape.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE meteors work
« on: January 09, 2023, 10:35:08 AM »
Is there a FE explanation?
Also not novel. You're approaching this with the mindset that FE must be revolutionary in every aspect. It's just orbital mechanics, even if we're not aware of every barycentre involved.
I'm approaching it with the mindset that for a new model to be adopted it has to provide better explanations for observations than the existing one. It needs to make better predictions.

No, that's not how you do science. It's pretty good evidence that RE orbital mechanics match many observations - something FE doesn't contest. RE is, generally speaking, a serviceable approximation of the world. It happens to break down in certain areas, but for everyday use its okay; much like Newtonian physics is neither "correct" nor "incorrect" - it simply matches most simple observations.
There's two things here, there's RET in the sense of the earth being a globe. The earth is a physical object which has a shape. That shape has been observed. Not by me, admittedly, but in real life no-one believes only the things they have directly observed. There's a page on your Wiki about the ice wall. How many of you have observed it directly?

Then there's RET in the sense of the whole of conventional physics. We agree that it isn't complete, it doesn't perfectly explain everything we observe. It does a pretty good job of some things, others things not so much. There are things we simply don't understand right now. But that has always been the case, that's why science is still a thing. If it perfectly explained everything it would stop. Newtonian physics does a very good job for many things, but for others Relativity does better which is why it has superseded it - it's a better understanding of reality. For something else to come and replace it, it would have to do a better job still of explaining observations and making predictions.

Your mindset seems to be that because RET in the second sense isn't complete, it must be all wrong. You're throwing the globe earth baby out with the whole of physics and astronomy bathwater. Which would be ok if your model was better, but right now it isn't. If it's a work in progress then fine - RET in the second sense above is too - but FET won't be widely adopted until it can do a better job of explaining reality than RET.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: January 06, 2023, 04:24:01 PM »
Last Night in Soho

Wasn’t what I was expecting although tbh I didn’t know that much about it.
Thought it was worth a look though, it's got Ana Joy whatsherface in, who I quite like, so I asked Santa for the DVD and he obliged.
I liked it. Didn't go where I thought it would but I guess that's a good thing.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: January 06, 2023, 04:21:03 PM »
Covid-19 is an airborne M. avium. Had each person, in each country, received a kit with clarithromycin/azithromycin through mail, back in february of 2020, there would have been no pandemic at all.
If only the medical experts around the world had listened to some bloke on the internet.
It's a real head scratcher that they didn't.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE meteors work
« on: January 06, 2023, 02:54:21 PM »
There is nothing novel about where meteors "come from" under FET. A meteor is a meteoroid that entered the Earth's atmolayer. Meteoroids are usually fragments of comets or impact debris from other bodies.

There is also nothing novel about them colliding with Earth. OP proposes that something has to "cause a meteor to suddenly lose acceleration and 'fall'", but that's blatantly not the case. Both bodies are affected by UA, so their relative velocity will be unaffected by it. The meteoroid will continue to travel with its initial velocity, and will continue to be affected by other factors, like gravitation.
There's no issue with meteoroids hitting earth in FE, if they're nudged out of the region where UA operates then they'll "fall" to earth, or rather the earth will accelerate up and hit them but the effect is the same. The issue I see is that there are certain meteor showers which occur at predictable times of the year. This makes sense in the RE model - the earth is travelling through the part of its orbit around the sun where those meteors are. Is there a FE explanation?
And then you have things like Halley's comet which has a ~75 year orbit, it was visible when I was a kid and has been periodically through history. We knew when it was coming, we know when it'll be back. Halley's prediction of its orbit and when it would return was done using Newtonian physics and his prediction was correct. Things like that are pretty good evidence for the model being correct. Is there any FE thought on periodic comets like that?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Midterms 2022
« on: January 05, 2023, 09:36:34 PM »
Aye. What the utter fuck are you lot playing at?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why are all FE models discs?
« on: January 02, 2023, 10:53:29 PM »
Latitude and Longitude are references ultimately based on astronomical phenomena. The Latitude is based on the angle of the North Star in the sky (for the NH) and Longitude is related to clocks and time zones. You might know your Lat/Lon coordinate point, but this would do nothing to show the distance between those points. This is how GPS, and formally the land-based LORAN, operate. The station knows its own coordinates and it is giving you your own coordinates based on triangulation.
Incorrect, as you are wont to say.
GPS uses trilateration, not triangulation.

You have agreed GPS can tell you your longitude and latitude. But mapping applications can use that information to accurately plot routes between one set of co-ordinates and another. How can it do that if it doesn't know the distance between them? And while we are here, the distance between degrees of Longitude is highest at the equator and gets smaller the further north or south you go. But on the monopole FE map the distance would have to keep getting bigger and bigger the further south you are. Some simple testing in Australia would immediately show that to be incorrect.

Much of professional GPS and GIS work, by the way, assumes that the earth is flat.
So? This is like your somewhat dishonest quoting elsewhere in the Wiki of some aerodynamics manual which talks about a flat earth. But it does so listing it as a simplification. It also lists as another simplification the airplane being of constant mass - which it won't be of course as it is constantly using fuel. So yes, sometimes simplifications are used but the very fact they're acknowledged as simplifications shows that they do not match the reality. In fact, the part you quoted
says: "the fiction that the earth is flat, which, of course, immediately introduces distortion"
And the very next sentence, which you didn't quote, says "it is worthwhile to spend some time discussing how the distortions are handled". A paragraph or two later it says:

As long as the extent of the coverage of the coordinate system is limited, the curvature aspect—while it leads to distortion—can be managed. It's when the flat map, the flat coordinate system, extends beyond a limited area that the distortion can get out of hand.  Therefore, the projection of points from the Earth’s surface onto a reference ellipsoid and finally onto flat maps is still viable.

And on map projections it says:

State Plane Coordinate Systems are built on map projections. Map projection means representing a portion of the actual Earth on a plane. Done for hundreds of years to create paper maps, it continues, but map projection today is most often really a mathematical procedure done in a computer. Nevertheless, even in an electronic world, it cannot be done without distortion.

In fact much of the article you posted is discussing the problem of projection from the surface of an ellipsoid earth on to a plane. Why is any of that necessary? If the earth is flat then no projection is required. But in reality it is. Why?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why are all FE models discs?
« on: December 31, 2022, 10:27:45 PM »
Your position is flawed. Unless they did something like walking around with a digital measuring wheel and physically measured the earth with a tactile method, there were assumptions in measuring long distances.
If they used a digital measuring wheel then that would also mean making an assumption - that the wheel is calibrated correctly and accurate.

Your objection to “assumptions” is very selective. The Bishop Experiment makes assumptions, Rowbotham made assumptions. You have no issues with that. Only when an experiment or technique yields results you don’t like do you switch to the skeptical context and start objecting to “assumptions”.

You have previously agreed that GPS can accurately give your longitude and latitude. How can it do that without distances being known? Leaving aside how that would work in the middle of an ocean, as it demonstrably does, which rules out any land based solution

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why are all FE models discs?
« on: December 31, 2022, 09:27:08 PM »
If you can come up with a way of measuring large distances which does not involve pseudoscience and a series of assumptions let us know.
Surveying is not pseudoscience.
It does of course involve assumptions - Euclidean geometry for example. Any scientific pursuit involved that. Rowbotham’s experiment involved assumptions, it presupposes that light travels in straight lines - something you actually reject.

The distances between places have been known for centuries and there are multiple ways they have been tested. You have previously said you accept GPS as accurate. I asked you several times how that could be so without the distances between places being known, you ignored the question. Because of course you did. Either the distances are known, in which case the earth cannot be flat, because know FE map is possible with those distances. Or the distances are wrong in which case you need to explain how GPS works and how industries get people and goods around the world.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why are all FE models discs?
« on: December 30, 2022, 07:08:45 AM »
A lot of FE belief stems from an attempt to take certain parts of the Bible literally. That was certainly Rowbotham’s motivation. And this verse talks about the “circle of the earth”

So I think that’s a factor in it being a circle in some models.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: December 27, 2022, 06:37:51 PM »
Tom’a position on pretty much anything is the one which panders most to his biases and worldview. The veracity with which he treats any evidence is dependent entirely on whether it confirms what he wants to believe. We can all be guilty of this of course, but he really turns it up to 11.
I’m just not sure if he really is as big a mess of Dunning-Kruger, confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance as he comes across or whether he does it for the troll or the intellectual exercise of defending the indefensible.
When it comes to the election, most people in the cult of Trump believe it was stolen simply because Trump said it was. One thing Trump is depressingly adept at is getting a lot of people to see him as their source of truth regardless of the evidence.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Speech Warrior Elon Musk
« on: December 22, 2022, 05:57:27 PM »
No one actually believes in free speech. It's a made up idealistic gibberish concept, like communism or a perfect circle. It's not real. It doesn't exist in reality. Everyone has some "I believe in free speech... but". Pointing out that people don't believe it (like Musk) makes for plain boring intellectual circlejerking.
People do believe in free speech, but free speech doesn’t mean you can literally say anything you like. The classic “shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre”. That isn’t covered by free speech for the obvious reason that you could cause a panic which could harm people (unless there actually is a fire of course). Free speech means you should be free to express differing opinions without censure. Yes, there is a “but”, the but is about saying things which could harm others. There are obvious grey areas here. If a social media platform decides to censure disinformation then that makes them the arbiter of truth, which is problematic. But it’s also problematic if someone posts something about how drinking bleach will stop you getting Covid.

TL;DR, I don’t think this is a simple issue, but if you’re going to buy Twitter and bang on about how you want it to become a bastion of free speech then it’s not a good look to ban the accounts of a load of journalists who have criticised you. (I believe these accounts have now been reinstated)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 198  Next >