Coronavirus and You - Page 663
Forum Index > General Forum |
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control. It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you. Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly. This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here. Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. | ||
mtammy779
1 Post
| ||
Mikau313
204 Posts
On November 18 2022 19:20 BlackJack wrote: A conversation on censorship of COVID misinformation does have some relevance to COVID I would even argue it's more relevant here than in the general politics thread. "We shouldn't silence legitimate political ideas/discourse" isn't a very controversial statement. The line between legitimate scepticism and Covid misinformation, and what on that spectrum should or shouldn't be given a platform is a discussion with a lot more nuance and legitimate reason to have differences of opinion. | ||
BlackJack
United States9268 Posts
Internal Twitter slack messages that surfaced during the lawsuit showed that during a meeting between Twitter employees and members of the Biden Administration the White House had posed a “really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off from the platform." One employee said they took a hard look at his account and didn't find anything violative. Nonetheless he was suspended on the same day Biden gave a speech about "social media companies killing people" by not doing more to censor misinformation. Consider the final tweet from Berenson before he was kicked off Twitter last year, which made the following statements about COVID-19 vaccination: “It doesn’t stop infection. Or transmission. Don’t think of it as a vaccine. Think of it - at best - as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it? Insanity.” The first two statements in the tweet are factually accurate. The third wouldn’t seem to qualify as a “claim of fact.” The fourth, with its reference to a “terrible side effect profile,” is at least tendentious and arguably misleading, but the overall point of the tweet is to express disdain for vaccine mandates. Just like censorship over the lab leak theory, this is not exactly rantings of "5G cell towers cause COVID" or "vaccines will implant you with microchips." Personally I find it very troubling if the government is going to lean on the tech companies in an effort to suppress or censor stories or speech they don't like. I'm very sure the tech companies want to stay in their good graces. Call it collusion or coercion but it seems like an obvious way for the government to censor speech by proxy. I've always felt far more threatened by the Orwellian silencing of dissenters than by COVID itself. Like when Trudeau just repeatedly called the trucker protestors racists because like 1 guy(?) showed up with a confederate flag before being chased off by the truckers. | ||
JimmiC
Canada22794 Posts
On November 18 2022 21:32 BlackJack wrote: The most troubling thing to me is when the government is leaning on the social media companies to censor speech they are not pleased with. Take for instance the case of Alex Berenson. I don't really know who he is but he seems to have some clout on Twitter with 340,000 followers. He was banned from Twitter for violating COVID misinformation rules. He then sued and was eventually reinstated with Twitter acknowledging that his tweets should not have led to his suspension. Internal Twitter slack messages that surfaced during the lawsuit showed that during a meeting between Twitter employees and members of the Biden Administration the White House had posed a “really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off from the platform." One employee said they took a hard look at his account and didn't find anything violative. Nonetheless he was suspended on the same day Biden gave a speech about "social media companies killing people" by not doing more to censor misinformation. Just like censorship over the lab leak theory, this is not exactly rantings of "5G cell towers cause COVID" or "vaccines will implant you with microchips." Personally I find it very troubling if the government is going to lean on the tech companies in an effort to suppress or censor stories or speech they don't like. I'm very sure the tech companies want to stay in their good graces. Call it collusion or coercion but it seems like an obvious way for the government to censor speech by proxy. I've always felt far more threatened by the Orwellian silencing of dissenters than by COVID itself. Like when Trudeau just repeatedly called the trucker protestors racists because like 1 guy(?) showed up with a confederate flag before being chased off by the truckers. Would you be able to source the lack of racism, because that is not how I remember it or accurate to any reporting I can find about it. There is also all the organizers overt connections to openly racists groups. https://www.amnesty.ca/news/ottawa-protests-statement-11-feb-2022/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/02/11/ottawa-trucker-convoy-is-rooted-canadas-settler-colonial-history/ https://www.mcgilldaily.com/2022/02/white-supremacists-at-the-freedom-convoy-arent-just-a-few-bad-apples/#close-modal https://www.unitedwayeo.ca/news-and-stories/united-for-all-condemns-hateful-signs-acts-and-displays-at-freedom-convoy-protests/ There was also smaller ones across Canada, including one where four people were arrested for plotting to kill some RCMP officers. https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-coutts-blockade-and-controlling-the-narrative/ https://globalnews.ca/news/8621336/fredericton-covid-19-protest-racits-symbolism/ https://www.ubcic.bc.ca/fnlc_strongly_condemns_freedom_convoy_movement_across_canada_and_its_spread_of_misinformation_racism_and_violence There was also the talk about how the mainly white protesters where treated very differently from Indigenous ones. My province created a law to be able to stop pipeline protests from (Indigenous folks) infrastructure being slowed or damaged but somehow was not used for this. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/february-2022/so-called-freedom-convoy-is-a-symptom-of-a-deeply-unequal-society/ | ||
Razyda
343 Posts
On November 18 2022 21:32 BlackJack wrote: The most troubling thing to me is when the government is leaning on the social media companies to censor speech they are not pleased with. Take for instance the case of Alex Berenson. I don't really know who he is but he seems to have some clout on Twitter with 340,000 followers. He was banned from Twitter for violating COVID misinformation rules. He then sued and was eventually reinstated with Twitter acknowledging that his tweets should not have led to his suspension. Internal Twitter slack messages that surfaced during the lawsuit showed that during a meeting between Twitter employees and members of the Biden Administration the White House had posed a “really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off from the platform." One employee said they took a hard look at his account and didn't find anything violative. Nonetheless he was suspended on the same day Biden gave a speech about "social media companies killing people" by not doing more to censor misinformation. Just like censorship over the lab leak theory, this is not exactly rantings of "5G cell towers cause COVID" or "vaccines will implant you with microchips." Personally I find it very troubling if the government is going to lean on the tech companies in an effort to suppress or censor stories or speech they don't like. I'm very sure the tech companies want to stay in their good graces. Call it collusion or coercion but it seems like an obvious way for the government to censor speech by proxy. I've always felt far more threatened by the Orwellian silencing of dissenters than by COVID itself. Like when Trudeau just repeatedly called the trucker protestors racists because like 1 guy(?) showed up with a confederate flag before being chased off by the truckers. What makes me even more pessimistic about it, is the fact that there are basically only 3 companies government needs to influence to control like 95% (?) of the internet. It is not anymore like with legacy media where sheer number of newspapers, or tv and the fact that they were competing with each other stations made it next to impossible. Now it is pretty much matter of 2 phone calls. It is quite clear that government likes it and intends to keep it that way - Musk acquisition of Twitter and his commitment to free speech is getting him demonised (just google 'Musk twitter government" ). This have implications: - FB and Google wont see any hinderance from the government in keeping their (pretty much) monopoly, - this give them leverage over government which should never be the case. Now what pandemic shown is how easy it is to block/marginalise views with which government is not happy with - just see Jimmy post below yours. | ||
ChristianS
United States3126 Posts
On November 18 2022 21:32 BlackJack wrote: The most troubling thing to me is when the government is leaning on the social media companies to censor speech they are not pleased with. Take for instance the case of Alex Berenson. I don't really know who he is but he seems to have some clout on Twitter with 340,000 followers. He was banned from Twitter for violating COVID misinformation rules. He then sued and was eventually reinstated with Twitter acknowledging that his tweets should not have led to his suspension. Internal Twitter slack messages that surfaced during the lawsuit showed that during a meeting between Twitter employees and members of the Biden Administration the White House had posed a “really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off from the platform." One employee said they took a hard look at his account and didn't find anything violative. Nonetheless he was suspended on the same day Biden gave a speech about "social media companies killing people" by not doing more to censor misinformation. Just like censorship over the lab leak theory, this is not exactly rantings of "5G cell towers cause COVID" or "vaccines will implant you with microchips." Personally I find it very troubling if the government is going to lean on the tech companies in an effort to suppress or censor stories or speech they don't like. I'm very sure the tech companies want to stay in their good graces. Call it collusion or coercion but it seems like an obvious way for the government to censor speech by proxy. I've always felt far more threatened by the Orwellian silencing of dissenters than by COVID itself. Like when Trudeau just repeatedly called the trucker protestors racists because like 1 guy(?) showed up with a confederate flag before being chased off by the truckers. I think it’s obvious to anyone who’s read your posts that you’re much more concerned about things that tickle your “Orwellian” detector than you are about things that cause specific, concrete harm to people. I just wish your concept of “Orwellian” were a little more coherent. Your prime examples in this case are 1) Twitter banning an anti-vaxxer, and 2) Justin Trudeau calling some protesters racist? I mean seriously, imagine inserting those plot elements into 1984. Winston Smith gets his Twitter account banned for telling people to take dewormer to treat their disease? Big Brother accuses Emmanuel Goldstein’s movement of racism, but otherwise allows them to protest freely? It doesn’t quite fit, does it? I understand the idea of distrusting even indirect mechanisms of government policing speech. But like, you seem to like DeSantis a lot, despite there being quite a few instances of DeSantis explicitly advocating for policies designed to punish wrongthink (remember the whole Disney kerfuffle?). Which makes me think your real issue isn’t hypersensitivity to early-stage Orwellian government policies, you just find self-righteous liberals annoying. So private actors deplatforming anti-vaxxers? “Orwellian.” Criticizing a political movement as racist? “Orwellian.” Passing laws explicitly intended to punish a corporation for being too “woke”? Eh, that’s fine I guess. | ||
JimmiC
Canada22794 Posts
On November 19 2022 03:08 Razyda wrote: What makes me even more pessimistic about it, is the fact that there are basically only 3 companies government needs to influence to control like 95% (?) of the internet. It is not anymore like with legacy media where sheer number of newspapers, or tv and the fact that they were competing with each other stations made it next to impossible. Now it is pretty much matter of 2 phone calls. It is quite clear that government likes it and intends to keep it that way - Musk acquisition of Twitter and his commitment to free speech is getting him demonised (just google 'Musk twitter government" ). This have implications: - FB and Google wont see any hinderance from the government in keeping their (pretty much) monopoly, - this give them leverage over government which should never be the case. Now what pandemic shown is how easy it is to block/marginalise views with which government is not happy with - just see Jimmy post below yours. Please expand, the government allowed the protests to continue for a long time it was businesses that suffered and were begging the police to do something. Not big businesses but small mom and pops many that are out of business now because of the massive loss of revenue. In fact they are currently trying to sue the organizers of the the "event". Im also not sure on your definition of block. It was the lead storey on every news show for the entirety of it with full view of the signs and allowing all tge organizers to speak as well as participants. They had a massive voice, the issue was what they were saying and how they were doing it was very unpopular with people and got more and more unpopular as it went on. | ||
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4251 Posts
The lockdowns and restrictions caused massive amounts of damage to small mom and pops.Actually they even caused the oil price to go negative if you remember, there being too much oil to store leading to a crash in that sector.That and supply chain issues being a big part of why inflation is so high. We're still dealing with the economic fallout of the lockdowns and restrictions. | ||
BlackJack
United States9268 Posts
On November 19 2022 03:49 ChristianS wrote: I think it’s obvious to anyone who’s read your posts that you’re much more concerned about things that tickle your “Orwellian” detector than you are about things that cause specific, concrete harm to people. I just wish your concept of “Orwellian” were a little more coherent. Your prime examples in this case are 1) Twitter banning an anti-vaxxer, and 2) Justin Trudeau calling some protesters racist? I mean seriously, imagine inserting those plot elements into 1984. Winston Smith gets his Twitter account banned for telling people to take dewormer to treat their disease? Big Brother accuses Emmanuel Goldstein’s movement of racism, but otherwise allows them to protest freely? It doesn’t quite fit, does it? I understand the idea of distrusting even indirect mechanisms of government policing speech. But like, you seem to like DeSantis a lot, despite there being quite a few instances of DeSantis explicitly advocating for policies designed to punish wrongthink (remember the whole Disney kerfuffle?). Which makes me think your real issue isn’t hypersensitivity to early-stage Orwellian government policies, you just find self-righteous liberals annoying. So private actors deplatforming anti-vaxxers? “Orwellian.” Criticizing a political movement as racist? “Orwellian.” Passing laws explicitly intended to punish a corporation for being too “woke”? Eh, that’s fine I guess. We’ve been dealing with viruses that kill us since the dawn of civilization. Yeah I don’t feel particularly threatened by another one which by now is about as deadly as the flu. On the other hand, all the other stuff is quite new. People used to be able to freely talk about how George Bush put thermite in the WTC to murder thousands and start the wars in the Middle East. Or any other nonsense conspiracy. Now we live in the era where words are violence so naturally we are morally obligated to censor and suppress speech more and more because they can harm people. Also yeah I think Ron DeSantis’ behavior with Disney was atrocious and has serious 1st amendment violation implications. Just like I think it’s atrocious the way him and others have tried to restrict abortion access. Does the Desantis-Disney saga have anything to do with COVID or are we just hoping I would rush to Desantis’ defense so that we can pigeonhole me ideologically? | ||
ChristianS
United States3126 Posts
On November 19 2022 07:19 BlackJack wrote: We’ve been dealing with viruses that kill us since the dawn of civilization. Yeah I don’t feel particularly threatened by another one which by now is about as deadly as the flu. On the other hand, all the other stuff is quite new. People used to be able to freely talk about how George Bush put thermite in the WTC to murder thousands and start the wars in the Middle East. Or any other nonsense conspiracy. Now we live in the era where words are violence so naturally we are morally obligated to censor and suppress speech more and more because they can harm people. Also yeah I think Ron DeSantis’ behavior with Disney was atrocious and has serious 1st amendment violation implications. Just like I think it’s atrocious the way him and others have tried to restrict abortion access. Does the Desantis-Disney saga have anything to do with COVID or are we just hoping I would rush to Desantis’ defense so that we can pigeonhole me ideologically? I dunno, how am I supposed to know your position on something until you say it? Every time I’ve seen you reference DeSantis it’s been favorable, glad to hear you don’t like him policing speech either. But fundamentally “criticizing others’ speech is censorship” is still incoherent. “Private companies’ moderation discriminating based on viewpoint is a violation of free speech principles” isn’t quite incoherent, but it isn’t workable, either. I get the impression that more than anything you’d like to prevent any circumstance where people feel pressured to say/believe the right-thinking position for any reason other than earnest evaluation of truth based on the evidence, so *any* consequences for speech, whether that’s being called racist or disappeared by the government, are anathema to you. Maybe that’s an overstatement, but otherwise why are we talking about private websites’ moderation decisions, or criticizing someone else’s speech, in the context of “free speech”? Like, I assume “words are violence” is a reference to certain types of leftists that like to call all manner of microagressions or whatever “violence.” But like, what exactly are those people actually *doing* besides sending mean tweets? I’m not saying being the main character on Twitter won’t ruin your day, but it’s got nothing to do with Orwell. | ||
JimmiC
Canada22794 Posts
On November 19 2022 06:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Why is jimmic clogging up the covid thread with posts about a Canadian oil pipeline protest? The lockdowns and restrictions caused massive amounts of damage to small mom and pops.Actually they even caused the oil price to go negative if you remember, there being too much oil to store leading to a crash in that sector.That and supply chain issues being a big part of why inflation is so high. We're still dealing with the economic fallout of the lockdowns and restrictions. First, stop with the purposefully disingenuous posts or actually read it before you respond. Yes the lockdowns effected the economy, which is why having a giant protest that shut down a entire downtown of a major city was a bad idea and lost almost all the support it had. It is also why there is a lawsuit against the organizers. Hard to respond respectfully when it is clear that either you did not take the time to read the post you are responding too or are purposefully misrepresenting it. Time to also bring up our bet. Pretty clear that Australia is not going to mandate multiple boosters this year. In fact they are recommending against the 5th one for healthy people, clearly they are following the science and what doctors suggest not some Orwellian conspiracy to steal rights and freedoms. I'll give a choice come January you can take your month off (pretty sure I'm not getting a year) or you can have a sig of my choice for the year, up to you! https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/australia-recommends-against-fifth-vaccine-dose-fresh-covid-wave-builds-2022-11-15/ | ||
BlackJack
United States9268 Posts
On November 19 2022 08:49 ChristianS wrote: I dunno, how am I supposed to know your position on something until you say it? Every time I’ve seen you reference DeSantis it’s been favorable, glad to hear you don’t like him policing speech either. But fundamentally “criticizing others’ speech is censorship” is still incoherent. “Private companies’ moderation discriminating based on viewpoint is a violation of free speech principles” isn’t quite incoherent, but it isn’t workable, either. I get the impression that more than anything you’d like to prevent any circumstance where people feel pressured to say/believe the right-thinking position for any reason other than earnest evaluation of truth based on the evidence, so *any* consequences for speech, whether that’s being called racist or disappeared by the government, are anathema to you. Maybe that’s an overstatement, but otherwise why are we talking about private websites’ moderation decisions, or criticizing someone else’s speech, in the context of “free speech”? Like, I assume “words are violence” is a reference to certain types of leftists that like to call all manner of microagressions or whatever “violence.” But like, what exactly are those people actually *doing* besides sending mean tweets? I’m not saying being the main character on Twitter won’t ruin your day, but it’s got nothing to do with Orwell. So if Elon Musk decides the only way to save Twitter is by accepting a boat ton of money from people that want to influence politics and he decides he is going to ban all Democrat candidates from Twitter in the run up to the 2024 election are you going to maintain that Twitter is a private company and should be permitted to moderate it however he pleases? The “words are violence” is the same logic applied to people that are censored or shouted down for “COVID misinformation.” The justification is “your speech is harming people so we need to suppress it.” I agree when you isolate the points there is nothing Orwellian about it. What’s so bad about Twitter banning antivaxxers? What’s so bad about Trudeau calling some people racist? What’s so bad about the government weighing in big techs moderation policies? Individually none of it sounds bad. But it seems like you’re doing that deliberately to ignore the broader picture - the government is leaning on tech companies to censor dissenters and branding dissenters as racists and nazis so that we can dehumanize them to the point that we will feel okay with effectively banishing them from participating in society. | ||
ChristianS
United States3126 Posts
Maybe Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg having free rein to censor opponents is just as troubling a prospect as if it were Joe Biden. I have no love for any of those three, but I probably dislike Biden the least. That said, none of those guys actually have anything close to the ability to silence opponents. I can talk shit about any of them, on Facebook, Twitter, or TL. That’s not because they aren’t thin-skinned, it’s because they don’t actually have the power to stop me. Are the social media companies too powerful? Maybe, but the answer certainly isn’t to give the government jurisdiction to decide how they should moderate. At the end of the day we have one set of rules for what speech the government can police, and a more permissive set of rules for what private actors can police on their own platforms, and that’s how it should be. Without the former the government gets to decide whether my views are too extreme to be spoken in public, and without the latter we can’t stop people from graphically describing their favorite porn on Club Penguin. Back to the topic at hand: I don’t have a problem with a website banning anti-vaxxers for spreading misinformation. It’ll be sticky for sure, and there’s sometimes a risk of bundling valid hypotheses with the real crazies (e.g. lab leak, which to my understanding is pretty well debunked by now but wasn’t fundamentally implausible). But moderation is always sticky. TL has made moderation decisions I’ve agreed with and decisions I didn’t agree with, but it always seems to involve judgment calls of what’s reasonable, and what’s unreasonable, and what’s obnoxious but livable and what’s unavoidably disruptive. “What about Orwell?!?” ultimately isn’t actually very insightful in judging these questions. | ||
BlackJack
United States9268 Posts
On November 19 2022 14:43 ChristianS wrote: Nobody’s banished from society. At most they’re banished from a social network or two. Don’t get me wrong, moderation decisions are often arbitrary and capricious, and frequently abusable by bad actors. By no means do I think the major companies have found good answers to how moderation should be done. But it’s rarely a product of direct or indirect government action. I don’t even buy that Berenson had much to do with administration influence, and it’s extremely rare to have even an indirect connection to the government like his case. Maybe Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg having free rein to censor opponents is just as troubling a prospect as if it were Joe Biden. I have no love for any of those three, but I probably dislike Biden the least. That said, none of those guys actually have anything close to the ability to silence opponents. I can talk shit about any of them, on Facebook, Twitter, or TL. That’s not because they aren’t thin-skinned, it’s because they don’t actually have the power to stop me. Are the social media companies too powerful? Maybe, but the answer certainly isn’t to give the government jurisdiction to decide how they should moderate. At the end of the day we have one set of rules for what speech the government can police, and a more permissive set of rules for what private actors can police on their own platforms, and that’s how it should be. Without the former the government gets to decide whether my views are too extreme to be spoken in public, and without the latter we can’t stop people from graphically describing their favorite porn on Club Penguin. Back to the topic at hand: I don’t have a problem with a website banning anti-vaxxers for spreading misinformation. It’ll be sticky for sure, and there’s sometimes a risk of bundling valid hypotheses with the real crazies (e.g. lab leak, which to my understanding is pretty well debunked by now but wasn’t fundamentally implausible). But moderation is always sticky. TL has made moderation decisions I’ve agreed with and decisions I didn’t agree with, but it always seems to involve judgment calls of what’s reasonable, and what’s unreasonable, and what’s obnoxious but livable and what’s unavoidably disruptive. “What about Orwell?!?” ultimately isn’t actually very insightful in judging these questions. Well I do think the Berenson ban was related to government influence. When the twitter is saying “we looked at his account and don’t see anything violative” and then also say the White House is pressing us on why he hasn’t been deplatformed yet, that’s pretty strong evidence for me. Also I wouldn’t say it’s “extremely rare” to have even an indirect connection to the government. Federal lawsuits about these things have shown that dozens of White House officials have been in contact with the tech companies, they ask the government for help in identifying “problem accounts” and they have weekly meetings to discuss combating misinformation. https://reason.com/2022/09/01/these-emails-show-how-the-biden-administrations-crusade-against-misinformation-imposes-censorship-by-proxy/ Twitter also was eager to fall in line. "I'm looking forward to setting up regular chats," says an April 8, 2021, message from Twitter to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). "My team has asked for examples of problematic content so we can examine trends. All examples of misinformation are helpful, but in particular, if you have any examples of fraud—such as fraudulent covid cures, fraudulent vaccine cards, etc, that would be very helpful." Twitter responded swiftly to the government's censorship suggestions. "Thanks so much for this," a Twitter official says in an April 16, 2021, email to the CDC. "We actioned (by labeling or removing) the Tweets in violation of our Rules." The message, which is headed "Request for problem accounts," is signed with "warmest" regards. Like Twitter, Facebook was thirsty for government guidance. In a July 28, 2021, email to the CDC headed "FB Misinformation Claims_Help Debunking," a Facebook official says, "I have been talking about in addition to our weekly meetings, doing a monthly disinfo/debunking meeting, with maybe claim topics communicated a few days prior so that you can bring in the matching experts and chat casually for 30 minutes or so. Is that something you'd be interested in?" The CDC's response is enthusiastic: "Yes, we would love to do that." Not to mention that The DHS under Biden tried to form a “disinformation governance board” whose job it would be to combat misinformation, disinformation and malinformation. It was ultimately abandoned due to objection and outrage. I agree that any internet moderation is full of grey areas and there is no easy answer to any of this. But one thing I find certain is that when there is a threat to our safety the government will use it as a justification to impinge on our personal liberties. That’s how you get internment camps during ww2, the patriot act after 9/11, or people in this thread saying that fellows Americans should be shipped off on a barge if they don’t get the vaccine. This is precisely the time to be most vigilant and not shrug off the Berenson thing as Twitter banning some rando that recommends heart dewormer for COVID. Btw we havent even talked about these ideas from a practical standpoint. You can ban all the misinformation posters you want and the result is that we’re all still going to get COVID eventually. We’re all going to get it multiple times eventually. Or what about the affect on public trust? Let’s ban people for questioning masking efficacy after we were told masks don’t help but then also told we were lied to about that because we needed to save them for the healthcare workers. I don’t just think the censorship is philosophically bad, I also think it erodes public trust and doesn’t do much of anything to mitigate COVID. At least until COVID can find a way to spread through bad tweets. | ||
Magic Powers
Austria2659 Posts
When anti-vaxxers get banned, it's a good choice 99% of the time. We can worry about the 1%, but why should we care even for one second about the remaining 99%? | ||
evilfatsh1t
Australia8517 Posts
theres ways going to be some overlap depending on how rules/guidelines for censorship is written. | ||
Magic Powers
Austria2659 Posts
| ||
evilfatsh1t
Australia8517 Posts
On November 19 2022 16:56 Magic Powers wrote: Censorship is not bad. It's a tool that can be used for good or for bad, and whatever constitutes good or bad is an ongoing debate and a matter of personal opinion. If censorship is 90% used for good and 10% used for bad, then the thing to do isn't to critizice all censorship, but to criticize the 10% of bad censorship. When anti-vaxxers get banned, it's a good choice 99% of the time. We can worry about the 1%, but why should we care even for one second about the remaining 99%? you asked. the answer to why we worry about the "99%" is my answer. to be clear though, i dont agree that 99 is the correct number and im assuming you used 99 in the figurative sense too | ||
JimmiC
Canada22794 Posts
On November 19 2022 22:57 evilfatsh1t wrote: you asked. the answer to why we worry about the "99%" is my answer. to be clear though, i dont agree that 99 is the correct number and im assuming you used 99 in the figurative sense too Where would you estimate the %s to be and why? What would acceptable? | ||
Razyda
343 Posts
On November 19 2022 16:56 Magic Powers wrote: Censorship is not bad. It's a tool that can be used for good or for bad, and whatever constitutes good or bad is an ongoing debate and a matter of personal opinion. If censorship is 90% used for good and 10% used for bad, then the thing to do isn't to critizice all censorship, but to criticize the 10% of bad censorship. When anti-vaxxers get banned, it's a good choice 99% of the time. We can worry about the 1%, but why should we care even for one second about the remaining 99%? Bolded: See I think this is where we disagree. I believe fighting misinformation is good, but using censorship to do that is bad. Similarly like defending your country would be good, using nuclear weapon to do that, much less so. Italic: Okay you got me a bit lost here: if one side gets censored, how is that debate??? "whatever constitutes good or bad is an ongoing debate and a matter of personal opinion" - what is censored however is not personal choice, or effect of the debate, it comes from the top. " If censorship is 90% used for good and 10% used for bad, then the thing to do isn't to critizice all censorship, but to criticize the 10% of bad censorship" - literally in the same paragraph you stated that "good or bad is an ongoing debate and a matter of personal opinion" As I expect you to argue " it comes from the top" with "elected representatives" and "greater/common good", I'll beforehand mention China and Russia, if you argue that those aren't democratic, then thats probably very argument which would get censored there as misinformation. But hey, censorship isn't bad. Your last paragraph given labeling and percentage radio is just an attempt to discredit people who happened to have different opinion. | ||
| ||