|
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. |
On November 19 2022 23:26 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +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.
You believe that anti-vaxxers get censored because they're anti-vaxxers, and not because they're spreading misinformation. It's the other way around. First they buy into false narratives, then they spread misinformation, and then they get banned. It just so happens that they tend to be anti-vaxxers rather than pro-vaxxers. The reason for that should be obvious to anyone who believes that science is a good thing.
Edit: and to the last part: no. For example here on tl.net, anti-vaxxers have been banned at a far higher rate than pro-vaxxers. In fact I can't even remember a single pro-vaxxer who got banned.
|
I think it would erode the public trust far more if the government didn't take efforts to combat misinformation and to present a clear message about public safety. Humans make mistakes but playing hindsight over what we should have done without taking into consideration what was happening doesn't make sense. You look at what happened after the fact and look to ways that you can prevent that from happening again, you don't question the entire ability to do anything at all.
Also comparing being de-platformed from social media to patriot camps and literal concentration camps is going way to far. Private companies have every right to not listen to the government when it is not legal for the government to order them to do something. Antivaxers and other pro covid posters were banned because it wasn't profitable for them to keep them posting. Yes the tools used to moderate social media are terrible but mistaking a false positive for a reason to eliminate the test altogether is silly.
The practical standpoint is to find out what we can do to separate the anti-vaxers from the ones doing independent research on the vaccine. Your "practical standpoint" is lacking the greater consideration for the why of what was happening. The focus from day one has been about keeping the hospital system stable above all else. The government did what it needed to to ensure public health and safety. Then they suppressed information that was going to harm public health and safety. The types of people who clinged to misinformation and conspiracy theories after being informed about the why on actions already have the information available to show that they're wrong will only do harm to the public good and need to be suppressed for it.
The whole point of public trust in government is for the government to act in its citizen's best interest. Suppressing anti-vaxers is explicitly in the publics best interest.
|
On November 20 2022 00:18 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2022 23:26 Razyda wrote: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. You believe that anti-vaxxers get censored because they're anti-vaxxers, and not because they're spreading misinformation. It's the other way around. First they buy into false narratives, then they spread misinformation, and then they get banned. It just so happens that they tend to be anti-vaxxers rather than pro-vaxxers. The reason for that should be obvious to anyone who believes that science is a good thing. Edit: and to the last part: no. For example here on tl.net, anti-vaxxers have been banned at a far higher rate than pro-vaxxers. In fact I can't even remember a single pro-vaxxer who got banned.
First of all: If you quote my post it is somewhat of a custom to refer to it in some way...
No I dont - people dont get censored, their message is. This is not the same thing.
Your edit is only part of your post relating to my post in any way.
And paradoxically what you do in your edit is the exact thing you accused me of doing...
"You believe that anti-vaxxers get censored because they're anti-vaxxers, and not because they're spreading misinformation."
"here on tl.net, anti-vaxxers have been banned at a far higher rate than pro-vaxxers."
|
On November 20 2022 02:28 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2022 00:18 Magic Powers wrote:On November 19 2022 23:26 Razyda wrote: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. You believe that anti-vaxxers get censored because they're anti-vaxxers, and not because they're spreading misinformation. It's the other way around. First they buy into false narratives, then they spread misinformation, and then they get banned. It just so happens that they tend to be anti-vaxxers rather than pro-vaxxers. The reason for that should be obvious to anyone who believes that science is a good thing. Edit: and to the last part: no. For example here on tl.net, anti-vaxxers have been banned at a far higher rate than pro-vaxxers. In fact I can't even remember a single pro-vaxxer who got banned. First of all: If you quote my post it is somewhat of a custom to refer to it in some way... No I dont - people dont get censored, their message is. This is not the same thing. Your edit is only part of your post relating to my post in any way. And paradoxically what you do in your edit is the exact thing you accused me of doing... "You believe that anti-vaxxers get censored because they're anti-vaxxers, and not because they're spreading misinformation." "here on tl.net, anti-vaxxers have been banned at a far higher rate than pro-vaxxers."
Anti-vaxxers are far more likely than pro-vaxxers to spread misinformation, because to be anti-vaxx is to be misinformed.
|
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%?
What’s your definition of “anti-vaxxer?”
|
On November 20 2022 03:09 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2022 02:28 Razyda wrote:On November 20 2022 00:18 Magic Powers wrote:On November 19 2022 23:26 Razyda wrote: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. You believe that anti-vaxxers get censored because they're anti-vaxxers, and not because they're spreading misinformation. It's the other way around. First they buy into false narratives, then they spread misinformation, and then they get banned. It just so happens that they tend to be anti-vaxxers rather than pro-vaxxers. The reason for that should be obvious to anyone who believes that science is a good thing. Edit: and to the last part: no. For example here on tl.net, anti-vaxxers have been banned at a far higher rate than pro-vaxxers. In fact I can't even remember a single pro-vaxxer who got banned. First of all: If you quote my post it is somewhat of a custom to refer to it in some way... No I dont - people dont get censored, their message is. This is not the same thing. Your edit is only part of your post relating to my post in any way. And paradoxically what you do in your edit is the exact thing you accused me of doing... "You believe that anti-vaxxers get censored because they're anti-vaxxers, and not because they're spreading misinformation." "here on tl.net, anti-vaxxers have been banned at a far higher rate than pro-vaxxers." Anti-vaxxers are far more likely than pro-vaxxers to spread misinformation, because to be anti-vaxx is to be misinformed.
Maybe but that doesnt change the fact that you did very thing you accused me of doing.
If they got banned for spreading misinformation about vaccine you may have a point, however if they got banned for anything else, let alone in any topic unrelated to vaccine, then you dont.
I will explain in your words:
"here on tl.net, anti-vaxxers have been banned at a far higher rate than pro-vaxxers."
If they are not banned for posting misinformation about vaccine then:
"You believe that anti-vaxxers get censored because they're anti-vaxxers, and not because they're spreading misinformation."
|
On November 20 2022 03:20 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +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%? What’s your definition of “anti-vaxxer?”
Honestly I think the biggest issue of this thread is labeling people.
There seems to be this ongoing weird assumption that you are either anti-vaxxer or pro-vaxxer and there is nothing in between.
|
On November 20 2022 03:32 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2022 03:09 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2022 02:28 Razyda wrote:On November 20 2022 00:18 Magic Powers wrote:On November 19 2022 23:26 Razyda wrote: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. You believe that anti-vaxxers get censored because they're anti-vaxxers, and not because they're spreading misinformation. It's the other way around. First they buy into false narratives, then they spread misinformation, and then they get banned. It just so happens that they tend to be anti-vaxxers rather than pro-vaxxers. The reason for that should be obvious to anyone who believes that science is a good thing. Edit: and to the last part: no. For example here on tl.net, anti-vaxxers have been banned at a far higher rate than pro-vaxxers. In fact I can't even remember a single pro-vaxxer who got banned. First of all: If you quote my post it is somewhat of a custom to refer to it in some way... No I dont - people dont get censored, their message is. This is not the same thing. Your edit is only part of your post relating to my post in any way. And paradoxically what you do in your edit is the exact thing you accused me of doing... "You believe that anti-vaxxers get censored because they're anti-vaxxers, and not because they're spreading misinformation." "here on tl.net, anti-vaxxers have been banned at a far higher rate than pro-vaxxers." Anti-vaxxers are far more likely than pro-vaxxers to spread misinformation, because to be anti-vaxx is to be misinformed. Maybe but that doesnt change the fact that you did very thing you accused me of doing. If they got banned for spreading misinformation about vaccine you may have a point, however if they got banned for anything else, let alone in any topic unrelated to vaccine, then you dont. I will explain in your words: "here on tl.net, anti-vaxxers have been banned at a far higher rate than pro-vaxxers." If they are not banned for posting misinformation about vaccine then: "You believe that anti-vaxxers get censored because they're anti-vaxxers, and not because they're spreading misinformation."
But they were banned for that exact reason.
|
On November 20 2022 03:20 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +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%? What’s your definition of “anti-vaxxer?”
Anyone who claims that vaccines are harmful, experimental or anything of that sort, and/or advises people to stay away from vaccines despite their proven safety. Other possible definitions also exist but for this discussion this must suffice.
|
On November 20 2022 03:46 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2022 03:20 BlackJack wrote: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%? What’s your definition of “anti-vaxxer?” Anyone who claims that vaccines are harmful, experimental or anything of that sort, and/or advises people to stay away from vaccines despite their proven safety. Other possible definitions also exist but for this discussion this must suffice.
So let’s run through some examples of hypothetical tweets I’m about to invent to see if it meets your threshold of actionable.
“I got the COVID vaccine last week and ever since then I’ve had blurry vision in one of my eyes and I believe it’s related to the vaccine”
“If you’re a generally healthy child you don’t need to get the COVID vaccine”
“I don’t trust the mRNA vaccines because it’s a new type of vaccine and we can’t know their long term safety profile”
|
On November 20 2022 04:15 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2022 03:46 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2022 03:20 BlackJack wrote: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%? What’s your definition of “anti-vaxxer?” Anyone who claims that vaccines are harmful, experimental or anything of that sort, and/or advises people to stay away from vaccines despite their proven safety. Other possible definitions also exist but for this discussion this must suffice. So let’s run through some examples of hypothetical tweets I’m about to invent to see if it meets your threshold of actionable. “I got the COVID vaccine last week and ever since then I’ve had blurry vision in one of my eyes and I believe it’s related to the vaccine” “If you’re a generally healthy child you don’t need to get the COVID vaccine” “I don’t trust the mRNA vaccines because it’s a new type of vaccine and we can’t know their long term safety profile”
This is a poor framing of the conversation. If you make a statement like the first one where you don't know about the symptoms beacuse you're in a health emergency you can be told the correct information. You're not committing to any sort of statement about the vaccine you're just sharing your personal experience with it.
The second could easily be missing the obvious "at this time" disclaimer and represents the very real issue with false positives. The disclaimer is there for the fact that we're still in the situation where there is a global shortage of vaccines and its more benifitical to save what vaccines there is for where they can be the most used. With that extra disclaimer that the poster could have genunily been thinking but just didn't post its not misinformation its just a false positive for it.
The third is. MRNA vaccines are decades old and just because you've never heard of something existing before doesn't make it brand new. Air fryers have come into the mainstream in the same timeframe as MRNA vaccines but they're more than a decade old in practice and much older in principle.
|
|
|
On November 20 2022 04:15 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2022 03:46 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2022 03:20 BlackJack wrote: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%? What’s your definition of “anti-vaxxer?” Anyone who claims that vaccines are harmful, experimental or anything of that sort, and/or advises people to stay away from vaccines despite their proven safety. Other possible definitions also exist but for this discussion this must suffice. So let’s run through some examples of hypothetical tweets I’m about to invent to see if it meets your threshold of actionable. “I got the COVID vaccine last week and ever since then I’ve had blurry vision in one of my eyes and I believe it’s related to the vaccine” “If you’re a generally healthy child you don’t need to get the COVID vaccine” “I don’t trust the mRNA vaccines because it’s a new type of vaccine and we can’t know their long term safety profile”
You know what is funny?
I actually find second one somewhat questionable, as it seems like medical advice.
Then I daresay though that author of the twit have bigger problems than censorship:
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/how-to-handle-claims-of-practicing-medicine-without-a-license-44835
"It is unlawful for any person to practice medicine without an active license. This means that if the person has been discovered doing so, he or she may be penalized through fines, possible jail time or other punishments, and this also means that he or she must understand how to deal with the claim when conviction of this crime is possible.
Someone that has experience or knowledge of medicine is not authorized to give medical advice or treatment to others without having an active professional license to do so, or he or she could face penalties or punishment."
https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/medical-malpractice/practicing-without-license-criminal-civil-liability.html
"Anyone harmed by a person practicing medicine without a license may sue for damages in civil court. Again, laws vary by state, but as a general proposition, a person practicing medicine without a license will be liable for just about any foreseeable injury that results from the misconduct."
Makes me actually wonder how many here said "should get vaccine", or something along the lines... 
|
The fun thing is that a lot of us are not living in the US, and thus not beholden to the US laws that require stupid disclaimers in front of any possible statement to not get sued.
It is very obvious to anyone with half a brain that when i say something, i am not a doctor currently treating you.
It is also very obvious that the spirit of a law like that is to punish people pretending to be doctors. Not people telling you to wear a sweater when it is cold to prevent getting a cold.
|
On November 20 2022 09:11 Simberto wrote:
The fun thing is that a lot of us are not living in the US, and thus not beholden to the US laws that require stupid disclaimers in front of any possible statement to not get sued.
It is very obvious to anyone with half a brain that when i say something, i am not a doctor currently treating you.
It is also very obvious that the spirit of a law like that is to punish people pretending to be doctors. Not people telling you to wear a sweater when it is cold to prevent getting a cold.
Bolded: Still generally when country require licence it actually requires licence, which I believe is the case in Germany? It would also seem that Germany takes internet activities somewhat serious?
https://www.derstandard.de/story/2000139875838/hausdurchsuchung-wegen-facebook-likes-laut-deutschem-gericht-verhaeltnismaessig
"Earlier this year, two German police officers were shot dead during a traffic stop in the Kusel district. Two suspects were quickly arrested. The day before the trial of the suspected shooter began in June, the homes of 75 other people were searched. They are accused of spreading hate postings.
This caused a stir, among other things, because not all of the accused were responsible for a posting that was allegedly criminal. One of the raids was justified by a Facebook like.
According to the Meiningen district court, this procedure was legal and proportionate, as stated in a decision dated August 5. A house search would only be ruled out "if other, less drastic measures that do not endanger the purpose of the investigation are available". This was not the case with the Facebook like.
Specifically, the accused is accused of having liked a third party's Facebook comment. He wrote under a contribution to a memorial service for the police officers who were shot: "Not a single second of silence for these creatures." By liking, the accused "commented on the post and made it his own," according to the court order.
A total of 180 devices were confiscated during the 75 raids, including those from the suspect mentioned above. According to the district court, this was justified because it was evidence. In addition, the resolution states that in the event of a conviction, it must be taken into account "that the distribution via Facebook and thus on the Internet took place among a potentially very large, even unlimited group of people"
Sorry google translate. It seems however that they are aware of reach of social media (bolded) and potentially harmful results of seemingly innocent activities (italic)
Italic: What about remaining 7 billion people?
Bolded 2: Sweater is not exactly medication though, wouldn't you agree?
There is also small matter of personal responsibility.
|
|
|
On November 20 2022 10:36 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2022 09:11 Simberto wrote:
The fun thing is that a lot of us are not living in the US, and thus not beholden to the US laws that require stupid disclaimers in front of any possible statement to not get sued.
It is very obvious to anyone with half a brain that when i say something, i am not a doctor currently treating you.
It is also very obvious that the spirit of a law like that is to punish people pretending to be doctors. Not people telling you to wear a sweater when it is cold to prevent getting a cold. Bolded: Still generally when country require licence it actually requires licence, which I believe is the case in Germany? It would also seem that Germany takes internet activities somewhat serious? https://www.derstandard.de/story/2000139875838/hausdurchsuchung-wegen-facebook-likes-laut-deutschem-gericht-verhaeltnismaessig"Earlier this year, two German police officers were shot dead during a traffic stop in the Kusel district. Two suspects were quickly arrested. The day before the trial of the suspected shooter began in June, the homes of 75 other people were searched. They are accused of spreading hate postings. This caused a stir, among other things, because not all of the accused were responsible for a posting that was allegedly criminal. One of the raids was justified by a Facebook like.According to the Meiningen district court, this procedure was legal and proportionate, as stated in a decision dated August 5. A house search would only be ruled out "if other, less drastic measures that do not endanger the purpose of the investigation are available". This was not the case with the Facebook like. Specifically, the accused is accused of having liked a third party's Facebook comment. He wrote under a contribution to a memorial service for the police officers who were shot: "Not a single second of silence for these creatures." By liking, the accused "commented on the post and made it his own," according to the court order. A total of 180 devices were confiscated during the 75 raids, including those from the suspect mentioned above. According to the district court, this was justified because it was evidence. In addition, the resolution states that in the event of a conviction, it must be taken into account "that the distribution via Facebook and thus on the Internet took place among a potentially very large, even unlimited group of people"
Sorry google translate. It seems however that they are aware of reach of social media (bolded) and potentially harmful results of seemingly innocent activities (italic) Italic: What about remaining 7 billion people? Bolded 2: Sweater is not exactly medication though, wouldn't you agree? There is also small matter of personal responsibility.
Yes, Germany takes some activities on the internet seriously. I never argued anything else. I am not certain that i always agree with it, but this is a completely different topic, as it is mostly related to extremist behaviour.
And if you dislike the sweater, then lets say something like "I god a headache" "Take an ibuprofen" or "I have a cold" "Use this medical rub on your chest". Would technically fall into your category of "medical advice". But is a totally normal thing people say to each other. If we follow your argumentation, people should be punished by the criminal justice system for this. Even stuff like "eat some chicken broth when you are sick" might fall under a very strict definition of medical advice.
In my opinion, all of those statements should be legal, even if you don't put a disclaimer of "I am not a doctor and this is not medical advice, but..." before them every time you say them.
|
|
|
|
|
There are major protests and even calls for Xi to resign. We all knew covid-0 would an be impossible strategy long term, how much longer can even the stability loving Chinese population tolerate this madness?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-63771109
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
