Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
Two high-profile progressive lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday that would pause new data centers in the United States until national safeguards are in place to protect workers and consumers and ensure the technologies don’t harm the environment.
The legislation by Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is unlikely to advance in either the House or Senate, but it shows the deep concerns many progressives share about the growing impact of data centers and artificial intelligence.
Communities across the country have seen a backlash against data centers over fears about rising electricity prices and concerns about pollution and water consumption. Opposition to rising power prices was also a key factor in Democratic wins last year in elections in states including Georgia, Virginia and New Jersey.
So, yeah, it's about introducing the moratorium until real worries about impact of AI can be studied and regulated, namely environmental concerns (water and electricity usage) and worker displacement (AI replacing peoples jobs).
These are very valid concerns and the bill, to me, makes absolute sense, because USA is hurdling towards a future it knows nothing about, but, you know, that's just how things are and have been for a long time.
The Data Centers that have already been planned and approved would, form what I read comfortably cover all the AI needs for the foreseeable future, they are being built on the promise of future demand that is not actually there, at least not now, because they are banking on AI becoming AGI/ASI where you won't be able to avoid it if you want to have any chance to succeed in the world.
FFS
"Two high-profile progressive lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday that would pause new data centers in the United States until national safeguards are in place to protect workers and consumers and ensure the technologies don’t harm the environment."
This is basically saying that government decides which AI companies get to build data centers.
While this is what free speech currently means, i think it is somewhat important to think about what free speech should mean in a modern world.
Which is why section 230 needs changing, no one should be able to moderate and being immune from responsibility at the same time, it should be one, or another.
@baal I dont think you understand your situation. You arguing with people who will tell you that Trump ban is fine because it is private platform, then complain that Musk banned someone from his platform. You arguing with people who believe that speech which lead to harm should be banned but are first to call others nazis, racists, child rapists, fascists.
You essentially arguing with people who somehow believe that if you tell somebody to " go f...k yourself" and then somebody rip of their d...k trying to show it up his a....s, the problem is your speech, but when they say "do x next" it is x who is the problem.
I’m unsure how that’s your takeaway from several pages of people spitballing ideas on some genuinely difficult problems.
On the bolded specifically, that’s not remotely the argument most made. Musk and his merry band of sycophantic fanboys and fangirls got criticised for claiming to be ‘free speech absolutists’. And when Musk acted in direct contravention of this supposedly deeply held principle of his, and other ‘free speech absolutists’ defended it, they were rightly called out for being full of shit.
Overall I think you’re grossly oversimplifying various positions to try and fashion zingers here that aren’t really landing. Alternatively you could choose to earnestly engage in quite an interesting topic
On March 26 2026 22:32 LightSpectra wrote: It was Gen X and Millennials who grew up in a world where the far-right was still the fringe of politics, and the "just let them make fools of themselves, trying to ban them will only embolden them" seemed to be sensible advice from our parents that grew up in a world where the Nazis and Fascists seemed to be permanently vanquished.
So it turns out that was complete hogwash, regrettably. Society still has time to update our collective wisdom to something more evidence-based but it's not surprising a lot of people are resistant to such a thing.
Millennial here (not by much tho) and I very much believed in my younger days that people's minds could be changed if convincing evidence could be provided. As a scientist, this felt like a self-evident truth. I sympathise with Baal's position in truth. I don't think he's being malicious, he just thinks people are better than they truly are and that's a nice sentiment.
I mean it’s the intuitive position after all. And it still works, provided, to my understanding that an individual hasn’t formed some kind of reasonably strong emotional attachment to a belief, or wider belief system.
It seems the current ecosystem, complex as it is does somewhat seem to rather bolt seemingly unrelated phenomena to particular belief systems. And in many cases that fusing is not reversible past a point.
There should be no real reason that belief in the efficacy of certain vaccines etc should serve as a (reasonably) accurate gauge of someone’s wider political beliefs.
But you’d have to be a lunatic to deny that was rather evident, specially in Covid times!
There is also another option too, the brain effectively ends up deceiving itself. Cognitive dissonance in the real sense of the term.
Someone does believe in x y or z, let’s say: 1. Vaccines are real, other COVID countermeasures are legit 2. I’m a decent person. 3. I wanna do my shit, despite recognising there’s potential harmful consequences to others.
Well, the easiest way out of that bind is to drop belief 1). You resolve the conflict (and the cognitive dissonance) between beliefs 2 and 3 because it becomes moot if you no longer hold belief 1.
I think part of why COVID was such a minefield in this domain was because of the clear clashes between personal autonomy and the public good. One has to draw their lines somewhere, but that will invite the judgement of others.
It’d be interesting to see how we’d fare if there was some existential WW3 kinda deal now. You’d probably see folks noping out of service with the rationale it wasn’t really happening at all
For me, part of the problem is social media's self-reinforcement loops and engagement-based algorithm which draws people in into these communities, making it more likely that outlandish ideas become part of their identity which is very hard to come back from.
I mean, take this: some fuckwit figures out they can make a ton of cash pushing the concept of "wild births",
the Free Birth Society (FBS), a business that promotes freebirth. Unlike home birth – birth at home with a midwife in attendance – freebirth means giving birth without any medical support. FBS promotes a version widely seen as extreme, even among freebirth advocates: it is anti-ultrasound, which it falsely claims harms babies, downplays serious medical conditions and promotes wild pregnancy, meaning pregnancy without any prenatal care.
FBS was founded by ex-doula Emilee Saldaya, and most women find it through its podcast, which has been downloaded 5m times, its Instagram account, which has 132,000 followers, its YouTube, with nearly 25m views, or its bestselling The Complete Guide to Freebirth, a video course co-created by Saldaya with fellow ex-doula Yolande Norris-Clark, available for download from FBS’s slick website. Analysis of FBS’s financial records by Stacey Ferris, a forensic accountant and academic at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, suggests it has generated revenues exceeding $13m since 2018.
... For $299, mothers can join FBS’s paid-for, private online community, the Lighthouse. To prepare for freebirth, women purchase The Complete Guide to Freebirth, for $399.
Reading all that material, women become brainwashed into thinking that freebirth is the safest way to deliver their babies. The consequences are predictable, when there is no medical support on hand and things go sideways, you end up with dead babies or disabled children for no effing reason other than to make some fuckwit a lot of money.
But sure, free speech and all that.
This touches on a lot of my concerns regarding 'free speech' - Specifically, 'free speech' within the context of two important factors :
1) People correctly don't trust (the) government and/or authority. This opening of reasonable doubt can be, and is, exploited by conspiracy hawkers as an in to gain their trust.
2) This 'speech' can be, and is done for profit though abuse of social media algorithms. Either monetization directly on the platforms via ad revenue, or by a connected pipeline of products (I.e. 'supplement' products that claim to detox microplastics or boost your sperm count or whatever). The speech is not done for the idea it presents, but the profit it brings. Truth is unimportant, and truth is not popular because truth is boring.
I have no issue with people defaulting to a mistrust of authority. In fact, I think that's probably good. I also have no issue with someone excercising their right to claim the earth is flat or that aliens invaded egypt 4,000 years ago, or that (insert government figure here) is actually a lizardperson. Where I take issue is the use of this 'free speech' to exploit stupid people for financial gain, without regard for the health and wellbeing of the stupid people, and without concern for the accuracy of what's being said. It's not important if anyone is actually a lizardperson, it's important that you get the eyes of people who believe lizardpeople are real, because odds are they'll take you at your word that your product works, because after all you agree with them that so-and-so is a lizard.
Like dyhb mentioned, the clear answer to this is civil suits and other legal action, I just wonder if that's sufficient. Cases like InfoWars / Alex Jones stand as examples - This dude spent years building an empire on misinformation and profiting off of it. Sure, eventually he got taken down by one of his lies, but how many people did he hurt along the way?
I don't think 'Silence Alex Jones' was ever the answer, but I do wish there was a way to force him to profit off the truth of his statements and not the conteoversy / conspiracy of them.
I guess for me the bigger problem there is a whole slew of misinformation is too scattershot and generalised to sue for. I mean yeah if someone libels me I can sue (assuming I have the means). How does one collectively sue for say, rabble rousing about whole groups of people? Muslims and Jews are pretty common targets nowadays for example.
I’m certainly no Alex Jones fan, I’m unsure how ‘damaging’ his content is in the wider context. Not because it isn’t utter bullshit, more in terms of is he too ‘out there’ to actually draw sufficient numbers in. I feel the real problematic stuff in terms of detrimental effects is way less obviously extreme nonsense, which I guess makes it even harder again to tackle.
I mean fuck Alex Jones, but there seems plenty worse out there to me sensibilities that haven’t faced nearly the same censure
On March 27 2026 01:10 LightSpectra wrote: So here's a controversial topic, Democratic primary in Maine for the U.S. Senate, the winner will run against Collins in November.
The two leading candidates are current governor Janet Mills, moderate endorsed by Chuck Schumer, 79 years old, and Graham Platner, left-wing endorsed by Bernie Sanders, 42 years old.
In normal circumstances I would say Platner is the obvious choice, BUT, he also had a Totenkopf tattoo (he claims he didn't know what it meant when he got it and said he would laser it off in October of last year). He's also an ex-mercenary for private military company Blackwater, even after their role in the Nisour Square massacre was made public knowledge. So there's a real worry that he's simply faking being left-wing and will go full John Fetterman/Kyrsten Sinema after he's elected.
I don't live in Maine so this isn't my problem, but it's an interesting dilemma for progressives there.
I wouldn't care whether he is really left or a fascist. Blackwater merc itself is pretty disqualifying, with or without skull tattoo.
Doesn't seem like Democrats need more purity tests? Or do they?
I don't know specifically what he did for Blackwater, but seems a little classist to only support the people hiring the mercs.
Be serious.
Having a few red flags that he could be another Fetterman is not 'purity testing.'
Is Fetterman the new Manchin? Aren't those undesirable, but necessary? So another Fetterman/Manchin would be a win?
On March 27 2026 01:10 LightSpectra wrote: So here's a controversial topic, Democratic primary in Maine for the U.S. Senate, the winner will run against Collins in November.
The two leading candidates are current governor Janet Mills, moderate endorsed by Chuck Schumer, 79 years old, and Graham Platner, left-wing endorsed by Bernie Sanders, 42 years old.
In normal circumstances I would say Platner is the obvious choice, BUT, he also had a Totenkopf tattoo (he claims he didn't know what it meant when he got it and said he would laser it off in October of last year). He's also an ex-mercenary for private military company Blackwater, even after their role in the Nisour Square massacre was made public knowledge. So there's a real worry that he's simply faking being left-wing and will go full John Fetterman/Kyrsten Sinema after he's elected.
I don't live in Maine so this isn't my problem, but it's an interesting dilemma for progressives there.
I wouldn't care whether he is really left or a fascist. Blackwater merc itself is pretty disqualifying, with or without skull tattoo.
Doesn't seem like Democrats need more purity tests? Or do they?
I don't know specifically what he did for Blackwater, but seems a little classist to only support the people hiring the mercs.
Be serious.
Having a few red flags that he could be another Fetterman is not 'purity testing.'
Is Fetterman the new Manchin? Aren't those undesirable, but necessary? So another Fetterman/Manchin would be a win?
Fetterman got brain damage from a stroke and basically became a Republican. Pennsylvania can easily do better and elect an actual Democrat like they thought they did. He still probably gives the Democrats 1 more seat towards a senate majority where a Democrat decides what bills hit the floor. That's still huge.
Manchin was the best West Virginia was ever going to do. He never pretended to be something else. He got elected for being exactly who he was. In 2027, we could really use an extra Dem vote in the Senate and grabbing one from WV would be amazing, even if it's another Manchin.
Platner seems problematic when they could simply give the current governor a term as a senator. Either would be better than Collins. I'm not from Maine and don't know the local politics, but from a national political level I'd easily choose Mills over Platner in the primary, but would still vote Platner over Collins in the general election.
Either Mills or Platner beating Collins would be a win, yes.
On March 26 2026 19:56 LightSpectra wrote: You know, you could have potentially strengthened your argument by saying "Even though I personally fell for potentially fatal medical misinformation, I still passionately believe censorship is wrong". Instead you decided to rant about people who, factually correctly, called ivermectin "cattle dewormer" when people were literally dying by trying it instead of the vaccine. Now you look like the guy angrily ranting about the gubmint trying to take away his horse paste.
I didn't take invermectin you moron, I bought N95s the second the first infection reached my country, unlike you I have a working brain and I didnt't wait until the OMS thought it would be cool for me to protect myself.
Also I took a flight to the US as soon as the vaccine was available for my age bracket because it took more over an extra year to reach Mexico.
The fact that you insist on calling an antiparasitic developed for humans "horse dewormer" instead of acknowleding it was a play to persuade people to not take it makes it crystal clear that you don't have any intellectual integrity whatsoever.
Fauci isn't the OMS. Fauci was Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. That aside, let's provide some context here:
no shit, also thanks for linkin Faucis wikipedia page, very neede wow sources lol.
"In a March 8, 2020, interview, Fauci stated that "right now in the United States, people [who are not infected] should not be walking around with masks", but "if you want to do it, that's fine".[54][55] In the same interview, Fauci said that buying masks "could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need" them: "When you think masks, you should think of healthcare providers needing them".[54][56] When Fauci made this comment, America's top surgical mask maker was struggling to produce enough masks to meet the increased demand.[56]"
"The use of masks is not needed"
Time later
"use double masks!"
But yeah they recieved last second evidence that the masks that millions have been using for the past 50 years and asia has been using in every single fucking previous pandemic actually work, yeah shockers.
The government correcting course based in new cutting edge scientific data, nothing to do with procuring supply to medical staff, not at all, nothing to see here.
On March 24 2026 21:11 EnDeR_ wrote: This is why I wanted to get your take. Your thesis, as presented, rests on convincing evidence being used successfully to debunk a bad idea. I.e. prove the idea wrong and kill it, in your own words.
You presumably agree that that doesn't really work. So does that make you rethink your approach here? How would you kill a harmful idea?
Having someone debate the bad idea with someone on the opposite side as it were has been tried. It turns out that platforming bad ideas and setting them on the same level as good ideas legitimises the bad idea and makes it spread. How do you tackle this, in your view?
You are like the 3rd person who is essentially asking "if free speech works why aren't things perfect", come on dont make me answer these silly questions again.
We are a deeply flawed being in a complex world, speech an open discussion is better to navigate through ideas than central censorship, that doesn't mean free speech means a perfect pink unicorn world lol.
Ideas are organically discussed at the level they deserve, for example Richard Dawkins decided to stop debating young earth creationists because frankly it was beneath him, but he debated with many other people in a higher level of discussion, however there were still many atheist who discussed with young earth creationists on smaller platforms, this serves well to watchers on different levels of the discussion.
Debate doesn't legitimize bad ideas, have you ever seen Dawkins debate a crazy fundamentalist and think "damn this Imam has a good point on killing apostates"? No, it shows the world that Islamists are violent and crazy.
Deplatforming is a good solution to stop the spread of misinformation (or bad ideas if you will).
The ‘Big Lie’ of election fraud pushed by former President Trump which culminated with the January 6 insurrection against the U.S. Capitol has profoundly reshaped the social media landscape. With @RealDonaldTrump and other prominent conspiracists no longer able to reach wide swaths of the public, misinformation about election fraud has already fallen dramatically
This has been particularly effective at stopping terrorist recruitment:
After being deplatformed in 2015, Islamic extremists migrated to Telegram and marginal social networking platforms. Then, in November 2019, Telegram and the EU’s main law enforcement body collaborated to clean up the remnants of the movement online. By forcing them into smaller and more clandestine digital locales, the groups ability to recruit, coordinate, and organize real-world violence significantly diminished.
So this is a good argument to stop the spread of bad ideas. What it doesn't do is fix the people that have already been exposed to the bad idea:
Shutting down accounts helps prevent average unsuspecting users from being exposed to dangerous content, but it doesn’t necessarily stop those who already endorse that content. When analyzing data from r/The_Donald and r/Incels, two forums that were removed from Reddit last year and later became their own standalone websites, researchers found a significant drop in posting activity and newcomers. Still, for those that continued to post on these relocated forums, researchers also noted an increase in signals associated with toxicity and radicalization.
For that we would need a different approach, but Deplatforming does help to avoid new people getting infected with the bad idea.
I think Twitter banning the sitting president of the United States is way worse for the world overall than whatever he could have said to his followers. I mean, I'm a libertarian and I still think its wild a corp can do that to the president, and you statists are ok with that?
But back on topic, yeah deplataforming obv works in diminishing the reach of people, but does it work to kill an idea?
Milo Yiannopolus, Stefan Molyneux and Gavin McInnes were deplatformed into oblivion, they were the pioneers of this anti-feminist "alpha male red piller" movement, do you think their ideas are weaker now?
Alex Jones was deplatformed and fined into bankruptcy (absurd amount tbh), and do you think his conspiracy theories have lost momentum?
I personally think that the alpha male red pillers and the conspiracy nut rhetoric is far stronger than when these people were deplatformed.
Wait, is the argument then that the sitting president is allowed to do whatever he wants, regardless of the consequences? That's kind of messed up.
The point about not killing the idea is explicitly contemplated in the source I provided, which is entitled "why deplatforming isn't enough".
With the specific case of terrorists and antivaxxers, reducing their reach directly reduces their associated harms in a quantifiable way, i.e. fewer terrorist incidents from home-radicalised individuals, fewer children get polio.
With Alex Jones stuff it has been less effective because he pioneered a whole ecosystem which includes assholes like Andrew Tate who is still srpeading harmful content, among many others. Yes, Alex Jones was deplatformed, but not the idea of anti-feminist, alpha male red piller bigotry; this is less a case of deplatforming not working, and more the consequence of not filtering this content out which has resulted in the radicalisation of a whole generation of young boys -- arguably an argument towards more thorough deplatforming, not less.
Hillary also said Trump stole the elections when she lost, Trump took it further but butthurt politicians refusing to acknowledge defeat is something that happens all the time (shouldn't be allowed though), social media companies banning the sitting president of the US is an unprecedented thing, far wilder.
So what we needed was much much broader censorship lmao.
On March 27 2026 01:32 Falling wrote: @baal Do you remember the context of Trump's twitter ban? Him sicking his followers on the Capitol to force Pence to subvert the election via the false elector scheme. I think a temporary ban would be warranted in the wake of that is justified just until they were sure he wouldn't try anything else. I disagree with the permanent ban; I think he should have been impeached and imprisoned. Do you?
I don't think there is evidence to convict since he didn't call to get into the capitol and told them to remain peaceful.
I think there should be more laws against denying election results overall, it happens way too fucking often with no consequences and it only weakens democracy.
I don't agree with most of the twitter bans (although I find it hard to force Twitter to keep Milo on their platform even if you grant the most charitable reading of Milo's interview that got him cancelled everywhere). However, I think all of Trump's above actions are far more dangerous (by magnitude and by imminence) to your republic than the twitter bans.
Wasn't it an interview where he confessed he was molested by a priest and later minimized the harms of molestation? if so I dont see how that is reason to be banned, he is a piece of shit though.
Yes Trump's action were more dangerous still banning him sets a dangerous precedent especially since you all agree the power of the algorithm and social media is out of control
On March 26 2026 22:06 Gorsameth wrote: I don't see how someone can have lived through the rise of social media without seeing the basic 1:1 overlap with the rise in anti-vax sentiment.
It just seems so very obvious that providing a platform for factual misinformation and giving it 'sunlight' doesn't kill it but instead nurtures it.
(I was going to assume baal was 20 something or younger but the account is from 2003 so that doesn't add up ><)
I'm older and wiser than all of you kids 8)
Antivaxxers used to be a left wing idea of hippies who usually dislike allopathy, but when vaccines become a government mandate it was taken over by right wingers who dislike government control.
What created the rise was the covid pandemic and its mishandling
On March 24 2026 21:11 EnDeR_ wrote: This is why I wanted to get your take. Your thesis, as presented, rests on convincing evidence being used successfully to debunk a bad idea. I.e. prove the idea wrong and kill it, in your own words.
You presumably agree that that doesn't really work. So does that make you rethink your approach here? How would you kill a harmful idea?
Having someone debate the bad idea with someone on the opposite side as it were has been tried. It turns out that platforming bad ideas and setting them on the same level as good ideas legitimises the bad idea and makes it spread. How do you tackle this, in your view?
You are like the 3rd person who is essentially asking "if free speech works why aren't things perfect", come on dont make me answer these silly questions again.
We are a deeply flawed being in a complex world, speech an open discussion is better to navigate through ideas than central censorship, that doesn't mean free speech means a perfect pink unicorn world lol.
Ideas are organically discussed at the level they deserve, for example Richard Dawkins decided to stop debating young earth creationists because frankly it was beneath him, but he debated with many other people in a higher level of discussion, however there were still many atheist who discussed with young earth creationists on smaller platforms, this serves well to watchers on different levels of the discussion.
Debate doesn't legitimize bad ideas, have you ever seen Dawkins debate a crazy fundamentalist and think "damn this Imam has a good point on killing apostates"? No, it shows the world that Islamists are violent and crazy.
Deplatforming is a good solution to stop the spread of misinformation (or bad ideas if you will).
The ‘Big Lie’ of election fraud pushed by former President Trump which culminated with the January 6 insurrection against the U.S. Capitol has profoundly reshaped the social media landscape. With @RealDonaldTrump and other prominent conspiracists no longer able to reach wide swaths of the public, misinformation about election fraud has already fallen dramatically
This has been particularly effective at stopping terrorist recruitment:
After being deplatformed in 2015, Islamic extremists migrated to Telegram and marginal social networking platforms. Then, in November 2019, Telegram and the EU’s main law enforcement body collaborated to clean up the remnants of the movement online. By forcing them into smaller and more clandestine digital locales, the groups ability to recruit, coordinate, and organize real-world violence significantly diminished.
So this is a good argument to stop the spread of bad ideas. What it doesn't do is fix the people that have already been exposed to the bad idea:
Shutting down accounts helps prevent average unsuspecting users from being exposed to dangerous content, but it doesn’t necessarily stop those who already endorse that content. When analyzing data from r/The_Donald and r/Incels, two forums that were removed from Reddit last year and later became their own standalone websites, researchers found a significant drop in posting activity and newcomers. Still, for those that continued to post on these relocated forums, researchers also noted an increase in signals associated with toxicity and radicalization.
For that we would need a different approach, but Deplatforming does help to avoid new people getting infected with the bad idea.
I think Twitter banning the sitting president of the United States is way worse for the world overall than whatever he could have said to his followers. I mean, I'm a libertarian and I still think its wild a corp can do that to the president, and you statists are ok with that?
But back on topic, yeah deplataforming obv works in diminishing the reach of people, but does it work to kill an idea?
Milo Yiannopolus, Stefan Molyneux and Gavin McInnes were deplatformed into oblivion, they were the pioneers of this anti-feminist "alpha male red piller" movement, do you think their ideas are weaker now?
Alex Jones was deplatformed and fined into bankruptcy (absurd amount tbh), and do you think his conspiracy theories have lost momentum?
I personally think that the alpha male red pillers and the conspiracy nut rhetoric is far stronger than when these people were deplatformed.
Wait, is the argument then that the sitting president is allowed to do whatever he wants, regardless of the consequences? That's kind of messed up.
The point about not killing the idea is explicitly contemplated in the source I provided, which is entitled "why deplatforming isn't enough".
With the specific case of terrorists and antivaxxers, reducing their reach directly reduces their associated harms in a quantifiable way, i.e. fewer terrorist incidents from home-radicalised individuals, fewer children get polio.
With Alex Jones stuff it has been less effective because he pioneered a whole ecosystem which includes assholes like Andrew Tate who is still srpeading harmful content, among many others. Yes, Alex Jones was deplatformed, but not the idea of anti-feminist, alpha male red piller bigotry; this is less a case of deplatforming not working, and more the consequence of not filtering this content out which has resulted in the radicalisation of a whole generation of young boys -- arguably an argument towards more thorough deplatforming, not less.
Hillary also said Trump stole the elections when she lost, Trump took it further but butthurt politicians refusing to acknowledge defeat is something that happens all the time (shouldn't be allowed though), social media companies banning the sitting president of the US is an unprecedented thing, far wilder.
So what we needed was much much broader censorship lmao.
Source for the bolded?
You didn't address the main points in my post though.
On March 26 2026 22:06 Gorsameth wrote: I don't see how someone can have lived through the rise of social media without seeing the basic 1:1 overlap with the rise in anti-vax sentiment.
It just seems so very obvious that providing a platform for factual misinformation and giving it 'sunlight' doesn't kill it but instead nurtures it.
(I was going to assume baal was 20 something or younger but the account is from 2003 so that doesn't add up ><)
I'm older and wiser than all of you kids 8)
Antivaxxers used to be a left wing idea of hippies who usually dislike allopathy, but when vaccines become a government mandate it was taken over by right wingers who dislike government control.
What created the rise was the covid pandemic and its mishandling
Mishandling is a strong word. There are many reasons for the rise of antivaxxers during the pandemic, but the main one was that social media allowed reaching a much bigger audience. Here is a good source about this.
Although anti-vaccine activism was already increasing in the USA and internationally, the 2020 emergence of COVID-19 served as an accelerant, helping turn a niche movement into a more powerful force. Whereas earlier anti-vaccine activism focused primarily on parents and school immunisation requirements, the universal nature of the COVID-19 pandemic provided anti-vaccine activists with concerned audiences that were far larger and broader. As the pandemic unfolded, anti-vaccine activists capitalised on discontent over pandemic measures such as physical distancing, school closures, and vaccine and mask mandates, joining right-wing groups, some elected officials, and some Christian nationalist pastors in opposing public health interventions via appeals to health liberty, and downplaying the severity of COVID-19.14,15
For me the really problematic stuff is this:
Much of the anti-vaccine information on social media moved through networks of so-called influencers.26 Some were long-time anti-vaccine activists and others had established their audiences in wellness, politics, parenting, or other spheres. Many of these influencers are ideologically motivated, but some, including several prominent anti-vaccine influencers, profit from their audiences by selling anti-vaccine books and products (eg, alternative treatments), and monetising websites with advertising revenue or affiliate links to anti-vaccine groups.26 In at least one case, influencers selling anti-vaccine products founded a medical freedom-focused super political action committee.27
The short term fix for this sort of thing is deplatforming. But to truly fix the problem, regulation needs to be put forward to tune the algorithms away from addictive maximum engagement. I hope that with the new rulings, this will give it enough momentum to get something done.
Two high-profile progressive lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday that would pause new data centers in the United States until national safeguards are in place to protect workers and consumers and ensure the technologies don’t harm the environment.
The legislation by Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is unlikely to advance in either the House or Senate, but it shows the deep concerns many progressives share about the growing impact of data centers and artificial intelligence.
Communities across the country have seen a backlash against data centers over fears about rising electricity prices and concerns about pollution and water consumption. Opposition to rising power prices was also a key factor in Democratic wins last year in elections in states including Georgia, Virginia and New Jersey.
So, yeah, it's about introducing the moratorium until real worries about impact of AI can be studied and regulated, namely environmental concerns (water and electricity usage) and worker displacement (AI replacing peoples jobs).
These are very valid concerns and the bill, to me, makes absolute sense, because USA is hurdling towards a future it knows nothing about, but, you know, that's just how things are and have been for a long time.
The Data Centers that have already been planned and approved would, form what I read comfortably cover all the AI needs for the foreseeable future, they are being built on the promise of future demand that is not actually there, at least not now, because they are banking on AI becoming AGI/ASI where you won't be able to avoid it if you want to have any chance to succeed in the world.
FFS
"Two high-profile progressive lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday that would pause new data centers in the United States until national safeguards are in place to protect workers and consumers and ensure the technologies don’t harm the environment."
This is basically saying that government decides which AI companies get to build data centers.
While this is what free speech currently means, i think it is somewhat important to think about what free speech should mean in a modern world.
Which is why section 230 needs changing, no one should be able to moderate and being immune from responsibility at the same time, it should be one, or another.
@baal I dont think you understand your situation. You arguing with people who will tell you that Trump ban is fine because it is private platform, then complain that Musk banned someone from his platform. You arguing with people who believe that speech which lead to harm should be banned but are first to call others nazis, racists, child rapists, fascists.
You essentially arguing with people who somehow believe that if you tell somebody to " go f...k yourself" and then somebody rip of their d...k trying to show it up his a....s, the problem is your speech, but when they say "do x next" it is x who is the problem.
I think you can do better. Note the lack of pejorative adjectives in my posts. I will happily read any source you provide.
On March 27 2026 01:32 Falling wrote: @baal Do you remember the context of Trump's twitter ban? Him sicking his followers on the Capitol to force Pence to subvert the election via the false elector scheme. I think a temporary ban would be warranted in the wake of that is justified just until they were sure he wouldn't try anything else. I disagree with the permanent ban; I think he should have been impeached and imprisoned. Do you?
I don't think there is evidence to convict since he didn't call to get into the capitol and told them to remain peaceful.
I think there should be more laws against denying election results overall, it happens way too fucking often with no consequences and it only weakens democracy.
I don't agree with most of the twitter bans (although I find it hard to force Twitter to keep Milo on their platform even if you grant the most charitable reading of Milo's interview that got him cancelled everywhere). However, I think all of Trump's above actions are far more dangerous (by magnitude and by imminence) to your republic than the twitter bans.
Wasn't it an interview where he confessed he was molested by a priest and later minimized the harms of molestation? if so I dont see how that is reason to be banned, he is a piece of shit though.
I think that's probably the most charitable reading of his interview. However, as long as he is at a stage in dealing with it in a way that makes light of and even seems to be in support of the whole thing... and for others (perhaps still a way of rationalizing deep early trauma), I can see most companies go... naaaah. Not on our platform. Figure yourself out first before spreading speech that seems supportive of it. (Even if it the whole thing was deeply ironic, there are some subjects that companies would prefer to avoid entirely.)
How dangerous do you think Trump's actions were? Impeachable? Worthy of prison?
On March 27 2026 01:10 LightSpectra wrote: So here's a controversial topic, Democratic primary in Maine for the U.S. Senate, the winner will run against Collins in November.
The two leading candidates are current governor Janet Mills, moderate endorsed by Chuck Schumer, 79 years old, and Graham Platner, left-wing endorsed by Bernie Sanders, 42 years old.
In normal circumstances I would say Platner is the obvious choice, BUT, he also had a Totenkopf tattoo (he claims he didn't know what it meant when he got it and said he would laser it off in October of last year). He's also an ex-mercenary for private military company Blackwater, even after their role in the Nisour Square massacre was made public knowledge. So there's a real worry that he's simply faking being left-wing and will go full John Fetterman/Kyrsten Sinema after he's elected.
I don't live in Maine so this isn't my problem, but it's an interesting dilemma for progressives there.
I wouldn't care whether he is really left or a fascist. Blackwater merc itself is pretty disqualifying, with or without skull tattoo.
Doesn't seem like Democrats need more purity tests? Or do they?
I don't know specifically what he did for Blackwater, but seems a little classist to only support the people hiring the mercs.
Be serious.
Having a few red flags that he could be another Fetterman is not 'purity testing.'
Is Fetterman the new Manchin? Aren't those undesirable, but necessary? So another Fetterman/Manchin would be a win?
On March 24 2026 21:11 EnDeR_ wrote: This is why I wanted to get your take. Your thesis, as presented, rests on convincing evidence being used successfully to debunk a bad idea. I.e. prove the idea wrong and kill it, in your own words.
You presumably agree that that doesn't really work. So does that make you rethink your approach here? How would you kill a harmful idea?
Having someone debate the bad idea with someone on the opposite side as it were has been tried. It turns out that platforming bad ideas and setting them on the same level as good ideas legitimises the bad idea and makes it spread. How do you tackle this, in your view?
You are like the 3rd person who is essentially asking "if free speech works why aren't things perfect", come on dont make me answer these silly questions again.
We are a deeply flawed being in a complex world, speech an open discussion is better to navigate through ideas than central censorship, that doesn't mean free speech means a perfect pink unicorn world lol.
Ideas are organically discussed at the level they deserve, for example Richard Dawkins decided to stop debating young earth creationists because frankly it was beneath him, but he debated with many other people in a higher level of discussion, however there were still many atheist who discussed with young earth creationists on smaller platforms, this serves well to watchers on different levels of the discussion.
Debate doesn't legitimize bad ideas, have you ever seen Dawkins debate a crazy fundamentalist and think "damn this Imam has a good point on killing apostates"? No, it shows the world that Islamists are violent and crazy.
Deplatforming is a good solution to stop the spread of misinformation (or bad ideas if you will).
The ‘Big Lie’ of election fraud pushed by former President Trump which culminated with the January 6 insurrection against the U.S. Capitol has profoundly reshaped the social media landscape. With @RealDonaldTrump and other prominent conspiracists no longer able to reach wide swaths of the public, misinformation about election fraud has already fallen dramatically
This has been particularly effective at stopping terrorist recruitment:
After being deplatformed in 2015, Islamic extremists migrated to Telegram and marginal social networking platforms. Then, in November 2019, Telegram and the EU’s main law enforcement body collaborated to clean up the remnants of the movement online. By forcing them into smaller and more clandestine digital locales, the groups ability to recruit, coordinate, and organize real-world violence significantly diminished.
So this is a good argument to stop the spread of bad ideas. What it doesn't do is fix the people that have already been exposed to the bad idea:
Shutting down accounts helps prevent average unsuspecting users from being exposed to dangerous content, but it doesn’t necessarily stop those who already endorse that content. When analyzing data from r/The_Donald and r/Incels, two forums that were removed from Reddit last year and later became their own standalone websites, researchers found a significant drop in posting activity and newcomers. Still, for those that continued to post on these relocated forums, researchers also noted an increase in signals associated with toxicity and radicalization.
For that we would need a different approach, but Deplatforming does help to avoid new people getting infected with the bad idea.
I think Twitter banning the sitting president of the United States is way worse for the world overall than whatever he could have said to his followers. I mean, I'm a libertarian and I still think its wild a corp can do that to the president, and you statists are ok with that?
But back on topic, yeah deplataforming obv works in diminishing the reach of people, but does it work to kill an idea?
Milo Yiannopolus, Stefan Molyneux and Gavin McInnes were deplatformed into oblivion, they were the pioneers of this anti-feminist "alpha male red piller" movement, do you think their ideas are weaker now?
Alex Jones was deplatformed and fined into bankruptcy (absurd amount tbh), and do you think his conspiracy theories have lost momentum?
I personally think that the alpha male red pillers and the conspiracy nut rhetoric is far stronger than when these people were deplatformed.
Wait, is the argument then that the sitting president is allowed to do whatever he wants, regardless of the consequences? That's kind of messed up.
The point about not killing the idea is explicitly contemplated in the source I provided, which is entitled "why deplatforming isn't enough".
With the specific case of terrorists and antivaxxers, reducing their reach directly reduces their associated harms in a quantifiable way, i.e. fewer terrorist incidents from home-radicalised individuals, fewer children get polio.
With Alex Jones stuff it has been less effective because he pioneered a whole ecosystem which includes assholes like Andrew Tate who is still srpeading harmful content, among many others. Yes, Alex Jones was deplatformed, but not the idea of anti-feminist, alpha male red piller bigotry; this is less a case of deplatforming not working, and more the consequence of not filtering this content out which has resulted in the radicalisation of a whole generation of young boys -- arguably an argument towards more thorough deplatforming, not less.
Hillary also said Trump stole the elections when she lost, Trump took it further but butthurt politicians refusing to acknowledge defeat is something that happens all the time (shouldn't be allowed though), social media companies banning the sitting president of the US is an unprecedented thing, far wilder.
So what we needed was much much broader censorship lmao.
I don't get why you guys keep giving the time of day to someone completely full of shit. The guy lives in the reality of "alternative facts", you can't argue with a liar.
On March 24 2026 21:11 EnDeR_ wrote: This is why I wanted to get your take. Your thesis, as presented, rests on convincing evidence being used successfully to debunk a bad idea. I.e. prove the idea wrong and kill it, in your own words.
You presumably agree that that doesn't really work. So does that make you rethink your approach here? How would you kill a harmful idea?
Having someone debate the bad idea with someone on the opposite side as it were has been tried. It turns out that platforming bad ideas and setting them on the same level as good ideas legitimises the bad idea and makes it spread. How do you tackle this, in your view?
You are like the 3rd person who is essentially asking "if free speech works why aren't things perfect", come on dont make me answer these silly questions again.
We are a deeply flawed being in a complex world, speech an open discussion is better to navigate through ideas than central censorship, that doesn't mean free speech means a perfect pink unicorn world lol.
Ideas are organically discussed at the level they deserve, for example Richard Dawkins decided to stop debating young earth creationists because frankly it was beneath him, but he debated with many other people in a higher level of discussion, however there were still many atheist who discussed with young earth creationists on smaller platforms, this serves well to watchers on different levels of the discussion.
Debate doesn't legitimize bad ideas, have you ever seen Dawkins debate a crazy fundamentalist and think "damn this Imam has a good point on killing apostates"? No, it shows the world that Islamists are violent and crazy.
Deplatforming is a good solution to stop the spread of misinformation (or bad ideas if you will).
The ‘Big Lie’ of election fraud pushed by former President Trump which culminated with the January 6 insurrection against the U.S. Capitol has profoundly reshaped the social media landscape. With @RealDonaldTrump and other prominent conspiracists no longer able to reach wide swaths of the public, misinformation about election fraud has already fallen dramatically
This has been particularly effective at stopping terrorist recruitment:
After being deplatformed in 2015, Islamic extremists migrated to Telegram and marginal social networking platforms. Then, in November 2019, Telegram and the EU’s main law enforcement body collaborated to clean up the remnants of the movement online. By forcing them into smaller and more clandestine digital locales, the groups ability to recruit, coordinate, and organize real-world violence significantly diminished.
So this is a good argument to stop the spread of bad ideas. What it doesn't do is fix the people that have already been exposed to the bad idea:
Shutting down accounts helps prevent average unsuspecting users from being exposed to dangerous content, but it doesn’t necessarily stop those who already endorse that content. When analyzing data from r/The_Donald and r/Incels, two forums that were removed from Reddit last year and later became their own standalone websites, researchers found a significant drop in posting activity and newcomers. Still, for those that continued to post on these relocated forums, researchers also noted an increase in signals associated with toxicity and radicalization.
For that we would need a different approach, but Deplatforming does help to avoid new people getting infected with the bad idea.
I think Twitter banning the sitting president of the United States is way worse for the world overall than whatever he could have said to his followers. I mean, I'm a libertarian and I still think its wild a corp can do that to the president, and you statists are ok with that?
But back on topic, yeah deplataforming obv works in diminishing the reach of people, but does it work to kill an idea?
Milo Yiannopolus, Stefan Molyneux and Gavin McInnes were deplatformed into oblivion, they were the pioneers of this anti-feminist "alpha male red piller" movement, do you think their ideas are weaker now?
Alex Jones was deplatformed and fined into bankruptcy (absurd amount tbh), and do you think his conspiracy theories have lost momentum?
I personally think that the alpha male red pillers and the conspiracy nut rhetoric is far stronger than when these people were deplatformed.
Wait, is the argument then that the sitting president is allowed to do whatever he wants, regardless of the consequences? That's kind of messed up.
The point about not killing the idea is explicitly contemplated in the source I provided, which is entitled "why deplatforming isn't enough".
With the specific case of terrorists and antivaxxers, reducing their reach directly reduces their associated harms in a quantifiable way, i.e. fewer terrorist incidents from home-radicalised individuals, fewer children get polio.
With Alex Jones stuff it has been less effective because he pioneered a whole ecosystem which includes assholes like Andrew Tate who is still srpeading harmful content, among many others. Yes, Alex Jones was deplatformed, but not the idea of anti-feminist, alpha male red piller bigotry; this is less a case of deplatforming not working, and more the consequence of not filtering this content out which has resulted in the radicalisation of a whole generation of young boys -- arguably an argument towards more thorough deplatforming, not less.
Hillary also said Trump stole the elections when she lost, Trump took it further but butthurt politicians refusing to acknowledge defeat is something that happens all the time (shouldn't be allowed though), social media companies banning the sitting president of the US is an unprecedented thing, far wilder.
So what we needed was much much broader censorship lmao.
Source for the bolded?
You didn't address the main points in my post though.
On March 27 2026 16:47 EnDeR_ wrote: Mishandling is a strong word. There are many reasons for the rise of antivaxxers during the pandemic, but the main one was that social media allowed reaching a much bigger audience. Here is a good source about this.
I think it's the mildest word I can come up with with how many governments reacted to the pandemic, I think its an ode to state incompetence.
From under reacting to geometric threats to turning a brief "flatten the curve" lockdown to a 2 year one, where they allowed BLM rallies but also stay at home, so many retarded useless policies etc.
Of course social media gives a bigger audience, its a megaphone, also pro-vaccination gets the megaphone too.
Much of the anti-vaccine information on social media moved through networks of so-called influencers.26 Some were long-time anti-vaccine activists and others had established their audiences in wellness, politics, parenting, or other spheres. Many of these influencers are ideologically motivated, but some, including several prominent anti-vaccine influencers, profit from their audiences by selling anti-vaccine books and products (eg, alternative treatments), and monetising websites with advertising revenue or affiliate links to anti-vaccine groups.26 In at least one case, influencers selling anti-vaccine products founded a medical freedom-focused super political action committee.27
The short term fix for this sort of thing is deplatforming. But to truly fix the problem, regulation needs to be put forward to tune the algorithms away from addictive maximum engagement. I hope that with the new rulings, this will give it enough momentum to get something done.
Yeah its sad that so many ppl are antivaxxers, freedom gives people the chance to make dumb choices, like wanting the government to control social media algorithms.
On March 24 2026 21:11 EnDeR_ wrote: This is why I wanted to get your take. Your thesis, as presented, rests on convincing evidence being used successfully to debunk a bad idea. I.e. prove the idea wrong and kill it, in your own words.
You presumably agree that that doesn't really work. So does that make you rethink your approach here? How would you kill a harmful idea?
Having someone debate the bad idea with someone on the opposite side as it were has been tried. It turns out that platforming bad ideas and setting them on the same level as good ideas legitimises the bad idea and makes it spread. How do you tackle this, in your view?
You are like the 3rd person who is essentially asking "if free speech works why aren't things perfect", come on dont make me answer these silly questions again.
We are a deeply flawed being in a complex world, speech an open discussion is better to navigate through ideas than central censorship, that doesn't mean free speech means a perfect pink unicorn world lol.
Ideas are organically discussed at the level they deserve, for example Richard Dawkins decided to stop debating young earth creationists because frankly it was beneath him, but he debated with many other people in a higher level of discussion, however there were still many atheist who discussed with young earth creationists on smaller platforms, this serves well to watchers on different levels of the discussion.
Debate doesn't legitimize bad ideas, have you ever seen Dawkins debate a crazy fundamentalist and think "damn this Imam has a good point on killing apostates"? No, it shows the world that Islamists are violent and crazy.
Deplatforming is a good solution to stop the spread of misinformation (or bad ideas if you will).
The ‘Big Lie’ of election fraud pushed by former President Trump which culminated with the January 6 insurrection against the U.S. Capitol has profoundly reshaped the social media landscape. With @RealDonaldTrump and other prominent conspiracists no longer able to reach wide swaths of the public, misinformation about election fraud has already fallen dramatically
This has been particularly effective at stopping terrorist recruitment:
After being deplatformed in 2015, Islamic extremists migrated to Telegram and marginal social networking platforms. Then, in November 2019, Telegram and the EU’s main law enforcement body collaborated to clean up the remnants of the movement online. By forcing them into smaller and more clandestine digital locales, the groups ability to recruit, coordinate, and organize real-world violence significantly diminished.
So this is a good argument to stop the spread of bad ideas. What it doesn't do is fix the people that have already been exposed to the bad idea:
Shutting down accounts helps prevent average unsuspecting users from being exposed to dangerous content, but it doesn’t necessarily stop those who already endorse that content. When analyzing data from r/The_Donald and r/Incels, two forums that were removed from Reddit last year and later became their own standalone websites, researchers found a significant drop in posting activity and newcomers. Still, for those that continued to post on these relocated forums, researchers also noted an increase in signals associated with toxicity and radicalization.
For that we would need a different approach, but Deplatforming does help to avoid new people getting infected with the bad idea.
I think Twitter banning the sitting president of the United States is way worse for the world overall than whatever he could have said to his followers. I mean, I'm a libertarian and I still think its wild a corp can do that to the president, and you statists are ok with that?
But back on topic, yeah deplataforming obv works in diminishing the reach of people, but does it work to kill an idea?
Milo Yiannopolus, Stefan Molyneux and Gavin McInnes were deplatformed into oblivion, they were the pioneers of this anti-feminist "alpha male red piller" movement, do you think their ideas are weaker now?
Alex Jones was deplatformed and fined into bankruptcy (absurd amount tbh), and do you think his conspiracy theories have lost momentum?
I personally think that the alpha male red pillers and the conspiracy nut rhetoric is far stronger than when these people were deplatformed.
Wait, is the argument then that the sitting president is allowed to do whatever he wants, regardless of the consequences? That's kind of messed up.
The point about not killing the idea is explicitly contemplated in the source I provided, which is entitled "why deplatforming isn't enough".
With the specific case of terrorists and antivaxxers, reducing their reach directly reduces their associated harms in a quantifiable way, i.e. fewer terrorist incidents from home-radicalised individuals, fewer children get polio.
With Alex Jones stuff it has been less effective because he pioneered a whole ecosystem which includes assholes like Andrew Tate who is still srpeading harmful content, among many others. Yes, Alex Jones was deplatformed, but not the idea of anti-feminist, alpha male red piller bigotry; this is less a case of deplatforming not working, and more the consequence of not filtering this content out which has resulted in the radicalisation of a whole generation of young boys -- arguably an argument towards more thorough deplatforming, not less.
Hillary also said Trump stole the elections when she lost, Trump took it further but butthurt politicians refusing to acknowledge defeat is something that happens all the time (shouldn't be allowed though), social media companies banning the sitting president of the US is an unprecedented thing, far wilder.
So what we needed was much much broader censorship lmao.
Source for the bolded?
You didn't address the main points in my post though.
What claims that antivaxxing and terrorism gets reduced in a quantifiable way?
Do you see the date on that?
She said that in 2019, after conceding and calling Trump in 2016, attending his inauguration and congratulating him and notably not inciting an insurrection.
Also she said this after the Muller report came out, the same one that documented a plethora of crimes surrounding Russian interference on behalf of Trump.
On March 27 2026 13:32 Razyda wrote: @baal I dont think you understand your situation. You arguing with people who will tell you that Trump ban is fine because it is private platform, then complain that Musk banned someone from his platform. You arguing with people who believe that speech which lead to harm should be banned but are first to call others nazis, racists, child rapists, fascists.
You essentially arguing with people who somehow believe that if you tell somebody to " go f...k yourself" and then somebody rip of their d...k trying to show it up his a....s, the problem is your speech, but when they say "do x next" it is x who is the problem.
The reason I came back to tl.net was because BlackJack send me a PM asking me to come post in the politics thread but it didn't take long before I realized it was too late, Constantinople had fallen, but alas here I am, last man standing swinging my sword against the horde of reddit-brained barbarians until the ban-hammer inevitably gets me.
You are insinuating that she did what Trump did, but Trump "took it further".
She, as I said, congratulated him and attended his inauguration. 3 years later, when presented with evidence of Russian collusion, she called him an illegitimate president.
You are a brain rotten liar deep in a echo chamber.
On March 27 2026 13:32 Razyda wrote: @baal I dont think you understand your situation. You arguing with people who will tell you that Trump ban is fine because it is private platform, then complain that Musk banned someone from his platform. You arguing with people who believe that speech which lead to harm should be banned but are first to call others nazis, racists, child rapists, fascists.
You essentially arguing with people who somehow believe that if you tell somebody to " go f...k yourself" and then somebody rip of their d...k trying to show it up his a....s, the problem is your speech, but when they say "do x next" it is x who is the problem.
The reason I came back to tl.net was because BlackJack send me a PM asking me to come post in the politics thread but it didn't take long before I realized it was too late, Constantinople had fallen, but alas here I am, last man standing swinging my sword against the horde of reddit-brained barbarians until the ban-hammer inevitably gets me.
Ahahaha, your main character syndrome is incredibly pathetic.
You did say you wished for a terrorist attack at the World cup as one of your first posts back, and you completely derailed the conversation here, every right-wing idiotic talking point, basically a tour of hot button topics for contrarian morons, from the Nazis to "free speech" and censorship to COVID.
Now to cap it off you reached to the oldest right wing trick in the book, I'm a victim and they are gonna get me.
On March 27 2026 13:32 Razyda wrote: @baal I dont think you understand your situation. You arguing with people who will tell you that Trump ban is fine because it is private platform, then complain that Musk banned someone from his platform. You arguing with people who believe that speech which lead to harm should be banned but are first to call others nazis, racists, child rapists, fascists.
You essentially arguing with people who somehow believe that if you tell somebody to " go f...k yourself" and then somebody rip of their d...k trying to show it up his a....s, the problem is your speech, but when they say "do x next" it is x who is the problem.
The reason I came back to tl.net was because BlackJack send me a PM asking me to come post in the politics thread
That explains why new right wing bullshit posters keep popping up one after the other, lol. I didn't expect there to be an actual network of right wing posters calling in reinforcements.
As for our talk about bad idea's and 'sunlight'. A 2018 (so well before Covid) study The Anti-vaccination Movement: A Regression in Modern Medicine discussed the spread of anti-vax sentiment over the internet and the frequency with which one finds negative opinions on vaccinations on the internet.
The rise of anti-vax sentiment very much pre-dates Covid, tho that certainly send it into overdrive. From the time the internet and social media gained traction these idea's have spread further and wider then previously.
Platforming misinformation does not cure it, it spreads it.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://i.postimg.cc/qRkN5frK/73c6d98ea4f8f72ebf20a8717090bfe9.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.postimg.cc/bYVZ3FBh/4fa7f71b3a2bd5c633cccc5530a20b77.png)
