Delta t:. were, past tense, is: present tense.

And what was the period of time in which that information was unavailable in mass?

Around the last election.

What was censored?

I was banned from twitter for pointing out that a 95% efficacy in a 6 week clinical trial does not mean a 95% efficacy a year out in the real world.

Somehow that was anti-vaxx.

Prove that's the reason you were banned. What if you're lying to make a political point?

How?

I don't know, I'm not the one making the claim. You want me to just believe you with no evidence but I should scrutinize researches intensely?

If you don't know what proof looks like then trying to prove anything to you is pointless.

You're the one who made the claim, I'm not required to help you prove it or describe what kind of evidence might be valid. You should already be able to do that before you made the claim.

If you dont know what would convince you then nothing will.

The fact that you seem unaware of the censorship shows how little consequence there was for the deception.

Google it man: FB and Twitter deleted MILLIONS of posts. They flagged hundreds of millions more as potentially disinformation, reducing engagement by ~90%.

The NYT said themselves that the media failed us on this - eventually, in May last year. [0] Still, they didn't acknowledge their own role, and put it in the opinion section.

And here you are, a year later, carrying water for them. You're not alone - many seem oblivious to their manipulation. It's bizarre, and quite scary.

"How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!"

[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/31/opinion/media-lab-leak-th...

The fact that you are aware of what was censored shows how little impact individual companies censoring information has.

Also how do you know those posts didn't have content that violated those companies rules?

> The fact that you are aware of what was censored shows how little impact individual companies censoring information has.

That may be your fundamental misunderstanding here.

Censoring millions of posts and drastically reducing engagement on hundreds of millions more has a very serious effect.

I'm aware, because I sought that information out - but most people I talk to still have lingering misinformation on those subjects. You yourself seemed to think there wasn't any such censorship, before the goalposts were moved. I'm reminded of the narcissist's prayer.

> how do you know those posts didn't have content that violated those companies rules?

Maybe many did violate the companies rules. But the rules were wrong-headed. Legitimate and necessary debate was stifled and perverted at a global scale, and up until half an hour ago you hadn't even heard of it.

By the company rules I meant racism for example. Show me a lab leak post that is simply information that was censored