nkkollaw

This is so cool.

Congrats!

Looks great!

We use Visual Cron for ETLs, that would tell me that there's a market..?

There are many reasons why people will pick up a paid product over free.

That's why Linux doesn't have more users than Windows.

Do you realize that price isn't the only thing!?

> why not unilaterally label all of it with: "may contain lies, omissions and half-truths"?

Even if Twitter's motive was to help its users, that's just common sense. Does Twitter have such a low opinion of its users that it needs to treat them like 5-year-olds?

Thanks for your permission to provide my view.

> Let me get this right - you're saying everyone should have the freedom to spread lies, half-truths or misleading statements, but that noone should have the freedom to call them out on it?

Twitter should decide what business they're in. If they're a platform for people to discuss ideas, they should stay out of expressing their opinion, absolutely. What's next, is Microsoft going to fact-check what you're saying while you talk on Skype and add a message over your voice?

> The only difference is that people trust Twitter more than the current POTUS.

That's so cool! Perhaps you've found who can beat Trump in 2020—Twitter. I thought there was no hope, but maybe...

> Because Twitter adds an annotion to a statement? An annotation that leads to facts/more information?

Why should Twitter do that. They're a tech company and are in no position to add to anyone's statements—specially a world leader's.

> If a world leader does that, it needs to be addressed. Would you accept all the information that comes out of other countries, for example North Korea?

It already gets address at the next elections. Even if it doesn't, are you saying that Twitter is the right institution to address lying from world leaders?

Does the leader of North Korea post on Twitter? Why are you comparing the leader of the freest country with the most oppressive?

So many questions...

Exactly.

Also, if they're false it should be easy to correct them.

Anyone who thinks about this for more than 20 seconds will see that this is about control, not protecting poor Twitter users who supposedly can't decide for themselves.

Is there, though? Why should Twitter be in charge of deciding who's a world leader or famous enough to get checked?

Who is Twitter to fact-check world leaders?

When world leaders rarely tell the truth, how can anyone realistically think that such a system could even work, even if it made sense?

Well, I don't think it can be see as a positive even if human beings are the ones to fact-check.

Who is someone working for Facebook or anyone else to flag my messages because they think they're not factual?

This is crazy.

Yes, of course it is. Most people will all of a sudden ignore someone's message.

I have no idea why anyone would argue in favor of Twitter. When has it become required to be an expert in the field to be granted the privilege of leaving a comment on a forum? When has it become unacceptable to lie? People lie all the time. Advertisements lie to you, politicians lie to you, your mom lies to you.

It's really annoying that the truth police is going to go and check your tweets or comment—even if you ignore the fact that the line between facts and opinions isn't always easy to see. Even facts like Taiwan being its own country or part of China or the Armenian genocide can be denied, and people should be able to say that—and perhaps rightfully get shit for that, but still be able to say it.

We're going back to the Middle Ages, where if you say Earth isn't flat or God doesn't exist (replace with global warming isn't caused by humans, Covid-19 is man-made), you're executed.

Sad.

I see. I guess it was just one theory.

What you're saying makes sense, thanks for explaining.

> However, to suggest that the lungs are not being absolutely ravaged by the virus infecting, replicating and rupturing lung cells is ludicrous

I was talking about permanent damage. I actually read my comment again, and that isn't really clear.

Doctors in Italy are saying that ventilators were thought to be useful because people complained that they couldn't breath, but now they're saying that it's not the lungs that aren't working, but it's oxygen that is not carried out in the blood, and that ventilators can actually cause permanent damage in many cases.

I'm not a doctor, so I just base everything on what the (supposed?) experts are saying. As far as I know they might very well say that on TV because there aren't enough ventilators, no idea.