So, 4chan. You want Twitter to be 4chan.

How do you know this?

Education level when?

Yep, this should be standard practice.

And we can call individual messages Xits.

I mean, your reasonable takes when, mr doctor? I love how you latched onto the pissing bit instead of matching your statements and priorities to your claimed level of education. If you claim to walk, then walk. You claim to run, so let's see it.

Oh, and I still need evidence of fraud for the studies (not to be confused with how long you claim your dick to be, in case you get fixated on another stupid pissing contest to conveniently divert from the topic).

technically yes but if leaving means you loose half your income then is it really a choice.

Of course, but it needn’t be black and white. You can also diversify, make yourself less reliant on a single platform. And by doing so, enable your audience to follow you elsewhere. Or diversify into different activities altogether. And when it’s no longer half your income on the line, then switch.

But doing nothing and saying, “but half my income!”? That’s not only a choice, but also complacency.

True they could spend the extra time poating on blusky first. Thrn on Twitter with a note that all posts are posted first on blusky. Enough people do that it would move the audience. But then people need to care enough to spend that extra time and care about what platform is used. Moat people care Twitter in the same way they care about ipv4 vs ipv6 addresses. Sad but true.

Education level?

I’m astounded that someone so smart wasn’t aware of how research studies have been being abused forever:

When big companies fund academic research, the truth often comes last

Most medical research is funded by industry, not public sources. And industry puts pressure on researchers in many ways, from guiding the research question to suppressing unfavourable findings.

The Conversation (theconversation.com)

I'm quite aware of how research is conducted. I also see little reason why such a paper would be forged for a few reasons, but since you dared to make the claim, you also get to pay the burden. And hand-waving is not it.

Reasonable statements worthy of a self-described doctor when?

I literally just showed you why studies shouldn’t just be trusted, and you come back with this?

It’s becoming quite evident why you won’t answer about your education level.

Yes, but it's unexpected of you, doctor, to not even click on the abstracts. Nor did you realize that your piece's main topic was research that conflicted with a company's source of revenue. In what way does this finding inconvenience a company's bottom line? It's preliminary research into an area of low interest.

Tell me, doctor of what, exactly?

Doesn't reminding users not to be so gullible address that?

A problem is promoting unrealistic expectations that untrustworthy information is reliable because someone else will unerringly determine the truth & catch falsehoods from spreading.
Claiming that ever made sense is bogus.

What is your position here, that they dont have a responsibility or they do?

The platform hosts everyone from nazi sympathisers to famed and accredited journalists, should they be presented as equals? Because if there is no onus and it is all caught under the same blanket warning there is a false equivalency being presented.

That it's irresponsible to sell a false bill of goods: a company sincere about not giving a fuck & that merely puts out an advisory is more credible than one that entertains illusions that fact-checking all social media isn't a foolish endeavor.
We don't get that in reality, so why should we pretend we can get that online?
Ultimately, the burden & responsibility to work out the truth is & has always been with the individual, and it's irresponsible to pretend we can sever or transfer that responsibility, especially in an open medium like the town square, social media, or general reality.

There's also the intractable problem of settling the truth.
Why should anyone trust a company or anyone to be arbiter of truth?
Infallible authorities don't exist & they are inevitably going to get this wrong & draw wild conclusions like that pro-palestinian protests are antisemitic & need to be censored.
While they could merely place notes/comments of fallible, researched opinions, we already get that with discussions like in real life.

Social media isn't a controlled publication like an encyclopedia or news agency that chooses its writers & staff.
It's a communication platform open to the public.

Instead of promoting a false sense of confidence that lowers people's guard with assurances no one can deliver, it's better to cut the pretense, admit there is no real solution, and remind everyone the obvious—unreliable information from anyone is untrustworthy, so they need to grow up, verify their information, and keep their guard up.

Your argument is built upon the position that it would be impossible to guarantee the veracity when it just is not the case. Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information.

If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible why cant the richest organisations on the planet be held to the same, or preferrably a higher, satandard?

Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information.

The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open.
By design, social media is open.

If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media.

ban people who share false information

Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods.
It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance.

Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true.
There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies.
Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down.
Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed.

Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify.

If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible

Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing.
It has a prepared, coordinated message.
They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want.

Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked.
They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.