Two things can be true at once:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause

I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.
I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views
I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.
I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.
In the case of Noah Carl, whose research I do know a little, I made the following comments at the time the controversy arose:
https://t.co/fnUEFR6Niq
I also agree with the sentiments expressed by @oxsoc here:
https://t.co/9wQwoqnWDp
I oppose the harrassment of researchers for saying what they think. But I also think poorly thought through government intervention will be a disaster. And I think that research used to justify said intervention should take care to get its facts correct.
I criticised Kaufmann's research because (a) it is prominent (b) it is heavily cited in the government's own proposals (c) its flaws are obvious, and a matter of easily checked public record
It is disingenuous of Matt, who also knows all of these things, to portray my criticism as motivated by a desire to suppress debate of free speech on campus. I have never expressed any such desire, and I do not have any such desire
As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." Insisting that a report making strong claims about no platforming on campus gets its facts right is not a suppression of debate. It is application of basic standards.
The kind of bad faith reasoning involved in the accusations Matthew makes in this tweet do not serve the debate he claims to want and are in fact examples of the kinds of bad faith catastrophising and whataboutery used by those who do try to suppress free speech.
In sum: 1. I strongly support free speech on campus 2. I reject the government's proposals as poorly thought through and probably harmful 3. I strong believe in basic research standards. The Policy Exchange report used by the govt does not meet these
4. I do not believe the free speech debate is well served by self-aggrandizing actors making sweeping, bad faith claims about their own behaviour and treatment, and the behaviour and beliefs of their opponents.
I won't be saying anything further on this. This is not, to pre-empt Matthew's inevitable response, because I am "hiding from debate". It is because I have made the points I want to make, and I have other demands on my time.

More from Society

I've seen many news articles cite that "the UK variant could be the dominant strain by March". This is emphasized by @CDCDirector.

While this will likely to be the case, this should not be an automatic cause for concern. Cases could still remain contained.

Here's how: 🧵

One of @CDCgov's own models has tracked the true decline in cases quite accurately thus far.

Their projection shows that the B.1.1.7 variant will become the dominant variant in March. But interestingly... there's no fourth wave. Cases simply level out:

https://t.co/tDce0MwO61


Just because a variant becomes the dominant strain does not automatically mean we will see a repeat of Fall 2020.

Let's look at UK and South Africa, where cases have been falling for the past month, in unison with the US (albeit with tougher restrictions):


Furthermore, the claim that the "variant is doubling every 10 days" is false. It's the *proportion of the variant* that is doubling every 10 days.

If overall prevalence drops during the studied time period, the true doubling time of the variant is actually much longer 10 days.

Simple example:

Day 0: 10 variant / 100 cases -> 10% variant
Day 10: 15 variant / 75 cases -> 20% variant
Day 20: 20 variant / 50 cases -> 40% variant

1) Proportion of variant doubles every 10 days
2) Doubling time of variant is actually 20 days
3) Total cases still drop by 50%

You May Also Like

"I really want to break into Product Management"

make products.

"If only someone would tell me how I can get a startup to notice me."

Make Products.

"I guess it's impossible and I'll never break into the industry."

MAKE PRODUCTS.

Courtesy of @edbrisson's wonderful thread on breaking into comics –
https://t.co/TgNblNSCBj – here is why the same applies to Product Management, too.


There is no better way of learning the craft of product, or proving your potential to employers, than just doing it.

You do not need anybody's permission. We don't have diplomas, nor doctorates. We can barely agree on a single standard of what a Product Manager is supposed to do.

But – there is at least one blindingly obvious industry consensus – a Product Manager makes Products.

And they don't need to be kept at the exact right temperature, given endless resource, or carefully protected in order to do this.

They find their own way.