I'm reserving judgement until I hear about this from a slightly less iffy organization. This doesn't inspire confidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Frontline_Doctors
The design alone of that website looks like a fake news or "alternative" news website.
And in general ALL social media platforms are private companies they can ban whoever they want for what ever reason.
Social Media companies are not your friend. They don't fight for your freedom. They don't have a soul or anything in that direction.
Treat them as any other company which can screw you at any moment.
So this must mean that this story is untrue right?
> And in general ALL social media platforms are private companies they can ban whoever they want for what ever reason.
> Social Media companies are not your friend. They don't fight for your freedom. They don't have a soul or anything in that direction.
Correct. Private platforms can do private platform things like bots banning people instead of humans, removing apps off of platforms for any reason or none or de-platforming anyone they don't like even if the content is not on their platform. They can all do that and keep all your money. They are not your friends and they will never change.
However, is there strong evidence that this particular story is untrue, misinformation or simply outright 'fake news' only because of the strangeness source itself? Unless cross-referencing the sources from Twitter, Patreon and the screenshots are somehow also faked?
As you can see in the article they reference a primary source directly, ie. her Twitter.
So even if you don't like who comes bearing with the news, if you comment on the reliability of the bearer you should have a valid criticism against the source that everyone can validate.
Wait for a broad range of coverage, discard outliers and sources which have a poor reputation.
I don't know what your point is here other than using an ad hominen to discredit this story without any counter evidence as to why this story is untrue.
[0] https://twitter.com/SydneyLWatson/status/1507071229446041600
[1] https://twitter.com/SydneyLWatson/status/1506698711400914965
It's good practice to wait until something has appeared in several news sources especially if a brief bit of research casts doubt on this one.
It's quite revealing that you immediately leapt to a much more exaggerated interpretation of my short statement.
> It's good practice to wait until something has appeared in several news sources especially if a brief bit of research casts doubt on this one.
It is indeed. But what if these 'several news sources' you speak of don't ever report it at all?
If this article had no sources, screenshots, etc and just a block of 'text', then I would have agreed with you. But the tweets in the author's Twitter account as sourced in this article and cross-referenced with their Patreon account (which last time I checked it is still disabled) [0] makes it difficult to dismiss this as false. That's my brief bit of research.
You are welcome to discredit and disprove the contents of the article as well as its sources and tweets.
> It's quite revealing that you immediately leapt to a much more exaggerated interpretation of my short statement.
Revealing that I actually read the contents of the article and its sources and do my own basic research to determine if a particular article is misinformation, faked or not. Rather than wait for others to do it and they end up never covering it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:America%27s_Frontline_Doc...
This protected page includes biased and false information and should be revised to be neutral and factual. Examples are the following: use of "right-wing" as a political label use of "alleged and unapproved treatments for COVID-19" is false (treatments that have been unfairly discredited are medically useful treatments) reference to Dr. Gold's participation in the "storming of the U.S. Capitol" is inapproriate and the word "storming" is also not factual.
This is the most slanded page on here.
The whole write up is opinionated and has little validity
Etcetera. In other words, this is just another example of Wikipedia having been taken over [1] by activists who use it for agitprop.
[1] taken over as "ideologically motivated editors use the platform and collude to spread their ideology to as many articles as possible"