If you look at the first article, you will see that it does in fact support the facts I presented:
[1] The state epidemiologist asked her supervisor to temporily remove the data: "“Per Dr. Blackmore, disable the ability to export the data to files from the dashboard immediately. We need to ensure that dates (date fields) in all objects match their counterpart on the PDF line list published,”"
[2] Rebekah assumed this was censorship: “This is the wrong call,”
[3] Her supervisor asked her to re-instate the data one hour later: "Then, just after 6 p.m., the I.T. director emailed both Jones and Dr. Blackmore. “Re-enable for now please.”"
Your correct, but she became a useful tool for MSNBC and the Democratic party in the effort to turn any GOP governor who wanted to open their states up into evil, callous villains. As a result, any attempt to inject the reality of her being completely wrong and rightfully fired immediately solicits downvotes from the resident partisan hacks on HN. They don't get the fact that she made false claims in May about a conspiracy to hide deaths, and has a history of being sensationalist and dishonest.
Rebekah Jones reminds me of Alex Jones:
Loyal following, every bad thing that happens to her further bolsters her conspiratorial claims, and she grossly exaggerates her own credentials.
You're not saying she deserved the police raid and neither am I. We are just trying to point out the reality that she isn't some whistleblower hero but that doesn't fit the political narrative that the partisan hacks on here have accepted so we will be downvoted into oblivion.
The partisan hacks will continue to call her a data scientist when she never even called herself that and is not remotely trained for that because it makes their narrative more powerful. That's what politicization does:
any statement of fact that counters the narrative will be ignored or rejected or reacted to with hostility.
Your facts support the claim of censorship. As noted in the article you cite, the reason the state epidemilogist wanted the data removed was to stop journalists from asking about covid confirmation dates, which were earlier than the state was claiming. Rebekah pushed back with her supervisor, who agreed that the request was censorship. The state (not her supervisor), acting at the behest of the governor, then removed Rebekah the following morning, alleging a "pattern" of insubordination though they could only ever document the 1 instance. (The governor's involvement was confirmed by the governor's press office giving the press release informing the public of her termination.)
>the reason the state epidemilogist wanted the data removed was to stop journalists from asking about covid confirmation dates
No, that is just your assumption, but is not supported by the facts. According to the article, the data disappeared for an hour, and then came back again. That is hardly censorship.
> then removed Rebekah the following morning, alleging a "pattern" of insubordination though they could only ever document the 1 instance.
Given that she has been booked on police battery, and has 3 felonies (one for sexual cyberstalking, and another for robbery), it wouldn't really be surprising.
[1] The state epidemiologist asked her supervisor to temporily remove the data: "“Per Dr. Blackmore, disable the ability to export the data to files from the dashboard immediately. We need to ensure that dates (date fields) in all objects match their counterpart on the PDF line list published,”"
[2] Rebekah assumed this was censorship: “This is the wrong call,”
[3] Her supervisor asked her to re-instate the data one hour later: "Then, just after 6 p.m., the I.T. director emailed both Jones and Dr. Blackmore. “Re-enable for now please.”"