My issue is not so much with the consumption as it is with the spread of false information.
But is there evidence to suggest that people venting on social media was a major contributor to that?
Canada and the UK have the same Twitter and Facebook we do, yet their vaccine uptake excelled greatly compared to ours...as did Israel's.
I'd argue that they did a better job of unified positive public messaging, which is the real way to beat bad information...which is, with good information that's unified.
Are they truly trivial though?
Many of them were... If it's not encouraging violence or anything illegal, it shouldn't catch a ban.
"If I don't like what they're saying, all I have to do is claim I'm offended and mommy and daddy will them shut up" isn't exactly a behavior I want to reinforce.
Calling a transgender person by their preferred pronoun does not imply that you're conceding the point - it's simply treating the person you're talking to with respect. That's not a partisan issue.
I'd disagree there. For a few reasons.
First, I'd say that some people need to make up their minds on whether gender is "just a inconsequential societal construct, so why is a big deal for you to call me by the pronoun I prefer?" or, if it's "a designation that's so important and meaningful, that it's critical to my identity"
Second, I'd say it is conceding some ground.
It's a heavily nuanced subject, but people treat it as a "all or nothing" situation. For instance, the bathroom & pronoun conversation is very different from the sporting league conversation.
On the bathroom & pronoun conversation, I'm in the "okay, whatever, I don't care" category, use whatever bathroom you want, if you want to be called "she", I'll do that as I'm not out to create any conflicts over something that doesn't "pick my pocket or break my leg" (as the saying goes). I'm not a religious person, so I have no reason to object to calling someone by a particular pronoun. With the specific caveat, that if it's some college kid using a pronoun that was made up in 2013 as a means of making other people bend a knee to them, or if I feel they're using it simply to add themselves to the "marginalized persons" category for social street cred, then I'll debate them on that.
Sports would be a different story, and I would definitely debate against a person suggesting that a biological male should play against females.
But, for some others, the pronouns aspect is a bigger deal, as if they hold certain religious views, making them say something that conflicts with their beliefs is an imposition.
The same way I wouldn't try to force a progressive person to use an adjective they disagree with on a subject just to appease a conservative. IE: I challenge conservatives pretty hard when they get mad at stores for not explicitly saying "Merry Christmas" and opting for a more generic holiday term, and I wouldn't force a secularist or non-Christian to say "Merry Christmas" just to make them happy on the grounds that "it's just some words, just go ahead and go along with it so they don't get upset"
I agree that it was absolutely about pushing an agenda - that of encouraging people to get vaccinated and to try to avoid getting/spreading COVID. That's a public health agenda, not a partisan one, and it's understandable that removing misinformation that reinforces the agenda would have a lower priority than removing misinformation that detracts from it.
I don't think they should've removed either...
But it was partisan on both sides. Conservatives racing to lift restrictions as fast as they could to score "Pro-freedom brownie points" with the base, and progressives using the danger of covid as a basis for proposals about retooling several of our institutions (on the precept that the more serious it is, the more drastic the change it justifies)
And furthermore, people are allowed to be skeptical of new things and express that skepticism. I understand the importance of getting people vaccinated...but there was some gaslighting occurring.
Instead of saying the honest "Covid can be pretty bad for certain groups, our early trials show this vaccine is pretty effective, and pretty well-tolerated...there could be some risks, but the pros far outweigh the cons for a huge segment of the population", the narrative became "this is the safest, most amazing vaccine in history, and covid is going to kill someone you love in next 3 months if both you and them don't get it"
NY Times did a good write up on the scenario in an article titled "Covid's partisan errors"
While it's true that there was a lot of misinformation about the situation coming from the conservative side (ranging from "it's just like the flu" all the way up to full blown conspiracy theories about hospitals fudging numbers, and vaccines being used for a Bill Gates population control initiative") ...there had to be to be some exaggerating coming the left as well in order to get people on board with some of the measures that were put in place. Otherwise, how did 41% of democrats get the idea in their heads that the hospitalization rate for covid was >50%?