Isn’t that tweet pretty clearly aimed at people who were already concluding that it was engineered in a lab? That’s a lot different than saying we should investigate the origins of the virus.

If a scientist is telling people to unfollow them because those people believe it's a possibility that they don't want ruled out without evidence; that is the very definition of being a child. In fact, maybe they shouldn't have credentials at that point.

If someone is telling people who already only believe that conclusion then that makes sense.

It's important to ask people that do this stuff to be very specific about their motivations in the moment, document them, and hold them accountable at a later date when the dust settles.

To wit, @BlockedVirology on Twitter documents virologists' blocking of people making rational, non-trolling inquiry into lab leak.

The statement is very explicitly not aimed at people who believe it’s a possibility.

The childishness of telling people to unfollow you on Twitter is undeniable, but isn’t really related, and is just what you get when you’re reading Twitter.

Social media is designed around social proof and validation. Plenty of otherwise rational people crave the support and affirmation of endorsing “correct” thinking while also attacking the “incorrect” thinking.

I always wondered why people used the phrase "dunk on" when referring to Twitter. Then I witnessed the purely and obviously performative nature of the bulk of these kinds of user's statements.

Even ones who claim to be activists will ignore any good faith questions, because every second they spend engaging in meaningful dialogue doesn't allow them to sit there and attack others for points from their followers.