But that's besides the point, because it's much simpler than that. You don't need elaborate analysis to see that people tired of Twitter "moderation" filled 4 other platforms: Gab, Parler, Minds and Truth Social. Literally all of them are characterized as right-wing by the same left-wing media outlets that claim that Twitter is impartial in moderation.
I'm tired of gaslighting around this issue. Just within replies to my above comment I've gotten two contradictory statements. One, that there is no bias in Twitter moderation, because conservatives are actually targeted less. Two, that there is no bias because conservatives are more likely to break rules, so they should be banned more often. We have two diametrically opposite descriptions of reality that nevertheless converge on the same conclusion. This is ideology-driven reasoning at its worst.
I said that at best it is impartial, and if anything, is more permissive to conservatives.
The fact that your "logic" is that extremists like KKK and other rightwing nut jobs are not allowed on twitter and thus have to create their own sites is proof of a double standard is absolutely insane.
You're so busy with your persecution fetish you cannot even see simple reason.
Hey that's awesome to hear! I saw the redesign but haven't really poked around much yet. If that's the direction examine is pivoting though I am very, very excited for it. Will definitely be checking it out.
Considering a fair number of people on HN use Examine, I figured it may be of interest here.
We (full disclosure: I'm Sol, co-founder) recently expanded from a focus on evidence-based information on nutrition + supplements to tackling on the bigger picture of health. We've developed our own taxonomy here, with the intention of making it easier for anyone to find and understand their specific health concerns.
You should try reading the full article (the myths article links to an article that expounds on each myth) before accusing us of being oversimplified.
As for the myths themselves - we've received over 50,000 emails from our users over the past 8 years. I'm pretty confident we can state those as myths that remain persistent in the nutrition space.
As I think I said, the article body is fairly decent despite the occasional missed caveat; my thesis was merely that the headline is false, and intentionally so. I haven't read the whole article, but as you can see from my comment above, I did read a substantial fraction of it.
That's how I know the falsehoods in the headline are not mere errors.
I did not accuse you of being oversimplified, and I'm sorry that wasn't clear. I said that beliefs like “salt is bad for you” are not so much myths as they are oversimplified, since indeed there is (for example) a very significant population with salt-sensitive hypertension. The thing that is oversimplified is the (broadly incorrect) belief held by many people, the belief you are arguing against. Since it contains an important element of truth, it is dishonest to simply call it a “myth”.
I have little doubt that these beliefs remain persistent. My thesis there is not that they aren't persistent; it is that they probably aren't the “top 19”, as the headline claims, presumably falsely.
I don't expect you to change your headline-writing practices, since clearly the dishonest strategy that produced that headline was chosen intentionally, but I do want to make sure that you don't misunderstand my critique. I think it's kind of a shame that you're throwing away credibility with dishonest headlines, intrusive interstitial newsletter ads, and so on, when the articles themselves are so valuable. But I'm fighting my own battles, not yours.
AhmedF has posted a truly remarkable response to this post, one I think is very relevant to assessing the integrity and trustworthiness of his web site, a response that has unfortunately been flagged into oblivion. It's quoted here in full for the benefit of those without showdead turned on:
Just wow.
> since clearly the dishonest strategy that produced that headline was chosen intentionally, but I do want to make sure that you don't misunderstand my critique.
It's people like you that put a bad name on engineers.
> The thing that is oversimplified is the (broadly incorrect) belief held by many people, the belief you are arguing against. Since it contains an important element of truth, it is dishonest to simply call it a “myth”.
It's a myth if it's preached when it does not apply to a majority.
Yikes. I wonder how fresh and clear the air is up there on your high horse.
I actually write zero of the content on Examine.com because I'm not qualified to do so. Which you would know if you actually looked at the site instead of arguing in bad-faith with a dash of superiority complex.
Unlike you, I try to separate my opinions from facts.
