Twitter clearly has no control over who they shut down. They say that they have some of the best algorithms in the land, but that starts to become questionable when they lock down an account that published a story based on…a tweet.
If Twitter allowed the account with the tweet to stay alive, why is it that an account that published a story about that tweet would get banned?
It makes no sense at all.
The National File, a national populist news website, found that their Twitter account had been locked. They reported on a tweet that was published by Tami Burages, a woman with a 13-year-old nephew who reportedly died three days after receiving dose #2 of the Pfizer COVID vaccine.
Burages wanted people to know about the dangers of the COVID vaccine, even though she identifies as being pro-vaccine. She believed the vaccine from Pfizer to be “mostly safe.” However, her nephew Jacob is now dead.
Twitter loves to be the police, especially about what is and isn’t fact regarding COVID-19. Although none of their fact-checkers have medical degrees, they pretend as though they do. If they don’t like what’s being reported, fact or not, they’ll lock the account. After enough warnings, the account holder may lose their account indefinitely, which is what happened to former President Donald Trump.
Burages believes that the vaccine has saved millions of lives but is also concerned that the decision to give out the vaccine to children was made in haste. She asks the question “Should any innocent child be a sacrificial lamb in this endeavor?” She goes on to say that there are moral, ethical, and health questions that need to be answered about what happened to her nephew and why children 12 and over are being given access to the vaccine without sufficient testing.
It’s no surprise that The National File decided to pounce on this story. It’s a good one – and it involves sharing something that the mainstream media has failed to report on.
Are COVID vaccines safe for children as young as 12? What is Pfizer doing about the reported death?
It wasn’t long before The National File found their Twitter account locked.
But…why? After all, their story was based on a tweet. If Twitter didn’t like what was being shared, they should look at the source. That’s just as bad as banning someone who shared a tweet without banning the originator.
Tom Pappert, the editor-in-chief for the National File was quick to condemn Twitter for their censorship of the website’s report. He explains, “Twitter’s censorship here is as repugnant as it is ridiculous.” He went on to explain that the website does not publish medical misinformation. Instead, they published a story that focused on direct quotes from a woman.
What is Twitter’s endgame, here?
Pappert has one theory. “It appears Twitter is attempting to censor news outlets for the crime of reporting on the concerns of a recently bereaved family member.”
Twitter doesn’t seem to know what it does and doesn’t want to publish anymore. All they know is that they don’t like stories that make the liberals look bad. They’re quick to lock an account down without looking at any of the facts.
Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s CEO, has come under fire on countless occasions from conservatives, including Ted Cruz. However, Dorsey continues to defend what Twitter does, hiding behind the terms and conditions. He’s been accused of infringing upon freedom of speech rights. Yet, Dorsey doesn’t see it that way. He explains that he’s simply committed to ensuring that people are getting factual information.
It seems Dorsey has forgotten that he’s running a social media platform, not a .gov resource page. Considering he can’t even keep his algorithms from flagging a story based on a tweet, his platform is in sorry condition.
Twitter has reinstated the National File’s account, but the story has lost the momentum that it had before being shut down.