Sick of the lengthy process of battling insurance denials to get companies to pay for her medical care, Holden Karau decided to fight back like an engineer: She built an AI program to automate the process.
“… The “dirty secret” of the insurance industry is that most denials can be successfully appealed…”
There’s been quite a few reports for this comment, I don’t know if it’s right to remove it, since to me it just comes off as misinformed more than anything and I believe seeing the rebuttals here, coupled with the original comment, is actually more helpful and constructive to the conversation.
Even so, I’ll let the reporters decide if they still wish to hide this comment.
EDIT: I’ll give it another 12 hours (ending 09:20) to gather feedback since most haven’t responded, I’ll remove if nobody says otherwise
I agree with this analysis of the reported comment, and chose to leave it as it has provoked a constructive conversation. It does not appear to be malicious in nature. I will keep an eye on this post to make sure things remain civil. Thank you.
Yeah, though I am still quite unsure, the majority were for removing: 2 that have reached out again, against none other than you who agreed on keeping, factoring in the initial reporters, 5, minus 1 who I count from before, I think I should still remove.
I’m actually past the deadline I gave myself but I want to hear what you think first
I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. I understand that the comment is not based on science and speaks of neurodivergence in a negative manner. By removing the initial comment, I believe it would take away the effectiveness of the commenters below. People vote with the down button and the user can see how unpopular his/her comment is. I don’t wish to overly moderate a community if there is no active harm, especially when others have meaningful sub-comments that can help other casual readers understand the different aspects of what gender affirming care entails, hopefully enlightening others to see it is more than just for trans persons. I respect everyone’s thoughts on the matter, even the ones telling me I am wrong for not removing it. I am still sticking with this decision. Thank you for everyone’s input.
By removing the initial comment, I believe it would take away the effectiveness of the commenters below.
This is demonstrably false, bigots thrive on “just asking questions” which is a well documented trolling tactic, and the replies to their comment will remain even if you remove the bigotry.
I don’t wish to overly moderate a community if there is no active harm,
But there IS active harm - you leaving these transphobic ableist comments up lets neurodiverse trans people like myself know that you prioritise your need for “neutrality” and “meaningful debate” (which is not happening here, you’re just providing more platform for a bigot to spread their bigotry and misinformation) over our safety and inclusion.
I respect everyone’s thoughts on the matter, even the ones telling me I am wrong for not removing it. I am still sticking with this decision. Thank you for everyone’s input.
Obviously you only respect your own opinion then.
Thanks for making it clear that people like me are not welcome or safe in communities you run, I’ll be avoiding them all, as I’m sure others will.
There’s been quite a few reports for this comment, I don’t know if it’s right to remove it, since to me it just comes off as misinformed more than anything and I believe seeing the rebuttals here, coupled with the original comment, is actually more helpful and constructive to the conversation.
Even so, I’ll let the reporters decide if they still wish to hide this comment.
EDIT: I’ll give it another 12 hours (ending 09:20) to gather feedback since most haven’t responded, I’ll remove if nobody says otherwise
I agree with this analysis of the reported comment, and chose to leave it as it has provoked a constructive conversation. It does not appear to be malicious in nature. I will keep an eye on this post to make sure things remain civil. Thank you.
Yeah, though I am still quite unsure, the majority were for removing: 2 that have reached out again, against none other than you who agreed on keeping, factoring in the initial reporters, 5, minus 1 who I count from before, I think I should still remove.
I’m actually past the deadline I gave myself but I want to hear what you think first
I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. I understand that the comment is not based on science and speaks of neurodivergence in a negative manner. By removing the initial comment, I believe it would take away the effectiveness of the commenters below. People vote with the down button and the user can see how unpopular his/her comment is. I don’t wish to overly moderate a community if there is no active harm, especially when others have meaningful sub-comments that can help other casual readers understand the different aspects of what gender affirming care entails, hopefully enlightening others to see it is more than just for trans persons. I respect everyone’s thoughts on the matter, even the ones telling me I am wrong for not removing it. I am still sticking with this decision. Thank you for everyone’s input.
This is demonstrably false, bigots thrive on “just asking questions” which is a well documented trolling tactic, and the replies to their comment will remain even if you remove the bigotry.
But there IS active harm - you leaving these transphobic ableist comments up lets neurodiverse trans people like myself know that you prioritise your need for “neutrality” and “meaningful debate” (which is not happening here, you’re just providing more platform for a bigot to spread their bigotry and misinformation) over our safety and inclusion.
Obviously you only respect your own opinion then.
Thanks for making it clear that people like me are not welcome or safe in communities you run, I’ll be avoiding them all, as I’m sure others will.
But hey, well done you, you defended a bigot!