-
I’ve been on Twitter for a decade, during which time I’ve participated in many edgy debates on a wide range of political and cultural issues. Until two days ago I’ve never had my account suspended. That’s when I addressed a tweet to the leader of the Australian Greens asking him to give consideration to Ivermectin, especially in the context of Papua New Guinea’s current surge in COVID-19 cases.
Here’s the tweet that put me in Twitter Purgatory (it was a reply to a tweet by Adam Bandt urging a faster rollout of the Australian Government’s COVID-10 vaccination program):
” @AdamBandt Vaccination is just one medical technology. It shouldn’t be the exclusive focus of public health policy. For instance, in PNG, RIGHT NOW, there’s a compelling case for rapidly distributing safe non-patent medications, notably Ivermectin. #ivermectinworks https://t.co/KGlWiGMrLA “
I’ve appealed Twitter’s decision, and now face a wait of indeterminate length while my case is investigated. In Twitter’s online appeal process, I was permitted only 160 characters maximum to state my case. This is the text of my appeal:
” My tweet was in no way disinformation. It was factually-based and linked to a video discussion between reputable doctors. It was pro-medication – NOT “anti-Vax” “
According to Twitter’s explanatory documentation, I could forgo the appeal and regain access to my account straight away.. But to do so is to tacitly accept that there WAS something unacceptable about the tweet.
In one sense, this is a small problem concerning one short tweet that the world won’t greatly miss. On the other hand, the principle is important. Right now, I’m not sure about the best way forward on this and I’m open to suggestions.
Incidentally, this is my first comment posted on the TrialSiteNews website, and I good time to say how much I appreciate your work.