> ADA is violating its own code of conduct to suppress an article

They published the article. That is the opposite of suppressing it.

> Personally, I flagged excerpts of the article to one of my Senator’s staffers.

Sounds like this article is indeed quite politically charged then? We're dealing with a hot potato here that has little to do with the actual science of diabetes and is going to cause random United Statesmen on the internet to start emailing their Senator. If you can't connect the dots with how that might reasonably be seen as inappropriate fare for a diabetes conference then you're probably going to figure it out later after a little reflection. It is likely that the conference organisers want to encourage technical discussion in a polite low-politics environment.

▲

JumpCrisscross an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> that has little to do with the actual science of diabetes

Not the takeaway I got from the article. They describe specific research and specific dollar-drawdown amounts.

The tools of science are just as relevant as the science per se to the process of science. I may be extrapolating from the astronomical circles I’m more familiar with. But folks debating telescopes and whatnot is commonplace, political, and absolutely germane. In many of those cases, simply handing out an editorial wasn’t the norm—you’d have straight-up advocacy going on. The idea that a conference organizer would eject someone for distributing a published paper would be absurd.

> likely that the conference organisers want to encourage technical discussion in a polite low-politics environment

They invited a political appointee to speak!

	▲	roenxi 30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> They invited a political appointee to speak! And it appears that is about their limit for politics at the event. They put their foot down at letting it turn into a debate club. I suspect if Bhattacharya didn't control the purse strings somehow he wouldn't have been invited to talk politics either, I bet the organisers were gritting their teeth when they offered him a slot. And nothing short of a significant cash infusion being involved would have induced them to let him speak. This appears to be a technical conference.

▲

iamnothere an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

“When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.”

This looks like the shoe-on-the-other-foot version of what we saw during Covid and BLM. I didn’t like it then, and I don’t like it now. Whatever happened to just ignoring the guy handing out contrarian leaflets? As long as he’s not yelling at or berating people it shouldn’t be a problem. The paper does seem relevant to conference attendees, even if it’s political in nature.

▲

trumpdong 29 minutes ago | parent [-]

What did we see during COVID and BLM?

▲

iamnothere 7 minutes ago | parent [-]

People with contrarian opinions were banned, shouted down, or even physically attacked for expressing those opinions.

Basically neither of the two primary parties believe in free expression anymore.

	▲	trumpdong 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		What specifically happened to who?