main criticism

I find this interesting and something that is definitely generational. Today I have the same view point as his mother in that buying an international flight on such short notice is something only held for the wealthy and the careless. I would be too anxious to spend that type of money.

right here is the restricting of sharing of information

how does it promote clean government if everything happening is confidential and there cannot be a whistleblower

I am confused how this is an ethics policy

I didn't even realize the impact this could have on people who need to be able to speak up against problems. When they do, they could be sued with these regulations.

Why would they need to do this?

Great start right here in how these people are being limited.

Right off the bat this brings into question freedom of speech and restrictions. Can this be considered the idea of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Where does twitter have the right to limit speech in this manner.

This one I do not understands, likes can result in it becoming viral, retweets cause it to spread, why replies? You can tag specific people in the replies? Concern the person posting will be harassed? Where is the open dialogue to discuss the post more as encourage above?

So they shadow ban the posts.

At what point does it become required!?!?!??!

There is a conflict of interest with the government aiding in the regulating. People who see the government as a threat/hiding things could feel targeted by the gov. role in regulating posts. Also, does the gov. have the right to limit the speech, especially in a country that advocates for free speech.

What role to companies play in this regulating of the conversation? What power do they have in ensuring their research findings are protected.

I feel as though this is a double edged sword, someone's first person account can be misleading or falsified to create misleading information.

How is there a platform for counterspeech if everything that is "false" is likely removed.

So strong opinions that go against the "official commentary" with opposing ideas that may not be based in science are banned. Got it

TBH I do not know what this word means and I feel as though I would not be alone. Should the language used in information policies be dumbed down so that any level can understand them. Remove the legalese!

This is the only one I see as appropriate, it is generally illegal to begin with to fake being a doctor. Again though, who vets these accounts.

I would love more information about this. I have had a hard time finding specific state and law regulations about it. Having been told by my dad that I could be stopped by the police for entering NH from MA without a reason such as an appointment.

I keep hearing an ad about these wipes that supposedly kill the Covid-19 virus and think back to those who ate/inhaled chemicals thinking it would help kill the virus. I get worried people are going to be showering in these wipes.

However, there is not enough science about the efficacy and safety of certain types of face masks. The jury is still out on this one for what types of masks are the best and most effective.

Do they remove these or just label them???

Not so much nationality, but race does play a part. African Americans are at a higher risk due to lower quality of care and resources that are provided to them, along with a slew of medical misconceptions that have been place in the institutions of health about African Americans.

How up to date is the information that they are limiting? They have the criteria for what would cause a label/removal, but how often to they update this criteria with the ever growing new information about Covid-19

This criteria is very grey for the line between labeled and removed. At what point does it become something needs to be removed? Who makes these decisions.

Why remove some and only label others? Where is the benefit in limiting the voices of the people, when you could mitigate it like they are for others?

This makes an assumption that there is a problem with what these people are saying that, although not founded in science, may appeal to a specific public and make others think in their own way. The information shared though conspiracy theories and alarmist rhetoric can play a part in the making of an informed decision. It is important to make aware that these ideas have no scientific backing, but not limit them

poppies are used to make opium, wouldn't this be confiscated?

she kill him?

this is a perspective of life i've never really thought about. from a young age we are told breaking promises is bad, but in reality it can be that keeping it isn't a good idea

yet, he found an specific interest in her and her appearance

why teach people on death row? especially is they are sentenced to death, what use is the education, what hopes do they have for the education on people that are never leaving the system?

fun fact sheep can recognize human faces

interesting to change the POV in characters to one of the inmates. not exactly clear at first though that there is a change in characters

this is so powerful in the different things it could mean. having been done wrong, we are more aware of those who can not relate, but also through gaining innocence again and correcting our faults we can see who there is to relate to and who has also faulted themselves.

i relate to this so much with school dress codes and the apparent fear that shoulders are inappropriate

there is such a common thread between these inmates, and it is only really identifiable by someone in the midst and actually listening to the stories of these children

could she be referring to prior sexual assault by the father that is being ignored due to him being on the death bed?

the first description sounds like the neighbor, while the other is the father. wonder if this is supposed to play at her insecurities and wish that her father was still their to protect her. despite the after math of him attacking her

he seems clearly drunk here and unable to let go. it does seem very different from the previous image created of him

stalkerish

what happened to him not wanting to do stuff because she is drunk?

this is very Harley-Quinn romance feeling, as it is preceding their first ever actual kiss. curious about the intent of making this more Harley-Quinn where as the rest is not

there is such an insecurity that we start to understand in Margot here. the reader really gets an insight into the fact that she doesn't seem necessarily experienced with relationships, and is anxious about doing anything wrong that might scare him away. It also shows an anxiety about her own interpretations of Robert's emotions towards her.

this is oddly accurate to how females respond when they don't want to admit something is wrong and ruin the mood

like the use of text-slang here

this could also be a more friendly gesture, the story does not necessarily make that the intent. yet that does not mean she interpreted the kiss properly

it is hard to find the sarcastic tone in this line compared to the one before that would result in him asking for the number.

this is interesting since it reverses the idea of "drunk rage" and gives an insight into the personality of the father

curious about this significance of salmon...

This part made me question about the titles relation with the place she is in. Approaches the idea that the afterlife is your perception of how you died. For her, it is everyone laughing at her for her life being a joke.