Thread by @jessesingal

If I'm an editor at Scientific American, one of a small subset of mainstream publications devoted solely to, well, science, I definitely want to jump in with an aggressive take on each and every culture-war controversy. Very very good for the brand.
scientificamerican.com/article/the-an…

2/ Scientific American is either being intentionally dishonest about the content of this Wisconsin bill or none of the four authors of this article, or any of the editors, bothered to read it.

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2021/related/p…

3/ The link points not to the bill itself, but to testimony from a state rep who argues the terms in question *potentially* violate the bill. But the bill itself does not issue a blanket ban on using any particular terms. You can really just read it!

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lc/hearin…

4/The bill seems pretty bad to me but the difference between "this bill bans a bunch of words from education!" and "one state senator testified he thinks curricula containing these words may violate the bill" is miles wide. From where I sit, if Scientific American can't get

5/ something as basic as the concept of a publicly posted bill right -- something I can easily check -- why should I trust them at all when it comes to stuff I can't check, like on CRISPR or immunology or dinosaurs or whatever?

@kreissdaniel @ftripodi @alicetiara you guys should really correct this. It's going to mislead a lot of people. You're confusing one random state legislator's testimony about which words he finds suspect with the force-of-law bill itself, which doesn't ban specific terms.