662
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
662 points (94.7% liked)
politics
18586 readers
4927 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
he’s a douchebag for money. he is vaxxed himself.
i went ahead and listened to that "antivax rant" and really it wasn't against the vaccine at all, he was against the censorship of discussion about it and policies around it.
such as, the lab leak hypothesis... once completely censored as "misinformation", but now a viable theory.
or how previous covid infections don't count as a vaccination, although the immunity ends up the same.
a lot of his ideas on it are wrong, or misinformed, but the fact that we weren't allowed to talk about it was fucked up... and i think it was a lot of the reason antivax shit got so big... being completely censored by bots on every forum makes a lot of people paranoid.
i do also remember being shouted down in every forum by a mob of anti-vax russian sock puppets, so it wasn't for no reason... but still, being able talk about things is crucial for a democracy to function.
It was never completely censored. Evidenced by the fact that you, me, and everyone else heard about it.
People got called names for promoting it without good evidence. People also got called names for pointing out that the evidence was super weak. Y'know, what passes for "debate" these days.
Stop lying
omg, you're soooooo right!
it wasn't completely, 100% censored, because ive heard of it! i must by lying!!!!!
your evidence is so solid! so much better than what passes for debates, is you completely proving that im lying.
go ahead and pretend like you haven't seen comments, videos and posts removed for "misinformation"
liar
When a topic has been covered by multiple national newspapers, it's just very silly to claim censorship.
The White House press secretary has said they worked with tech companies to ban misinformation. The Twitter Files showed many government agencies giving them guidance to for the rules around covid misinformation, then giving lists of tweets to take action on for breaking said terms and conditions. Like or not what goofy things people thought about covid, the government telling them to shut down these posts is clearly against the first amendment.
The actual information released in "the Twitter files" showed the opposite of what musky's pet propagandists said it did.
You seem to actually admit that what happened was identifying posts that violated the terms and conditions of private companies. No demands or threats were issued.Does the government have no right to speak truth?
If a government agency notices a lethal hazard in your town that doesn't technically violate the law, should they be prohibited from telling you and your neighbors about the danger?
things change over time.
for SOME TIME, it was treated as laughable misinformation, and directly censored... later it wasn't. (check out coverage on Jon Stewart when he talked about it when you weren't supposed to)
at a LATER TIME it was no longer bad to talk about it.
sorry you have no idea what's being discussed here.
im sorry if you really think that there was no censorship involving covid discussions online.
and i dont really care how silly you are.
They weren't censored very well, clearly. And considering a lot of COVID misinformation was telling you to inject horse dewormer instead of getting a vaccine, I wish it was censored better. In a public health emergency, I'm pretty okay with requiring statements to be scientifically and medically sound.
Second, it was misinformation at the time. Researchers and the general scientifically community believed the evidence pointed to other theories. It wasn't until later when we had more evidence that it emerged as a serious possibility.
That's how science works. Unless an idea is supported by clear and sound evidence, it's untrue. The lab leak theory can be misinformation at one point in time and viable at another point in time -- if I predicted heavy snowfall on a 74 degree day in June, it would very obviously be wrong. If I predict it for a 20 degree day in December however, it's actually plausible. It blows my mind that this is a novel concept for some people.
what??? no it wasn't. it was a plausible hypothesis.
that is not how science works. science works by a free exchange of ideas
no. something can be completely true but not at all supported by evidence. You are confusing "truth" with "a broader scientific belief"
that doesn't make sense, and isn't what "misinformation" even means.
well that's the stupidest analogy i've ever read... the "date" and "temperature" of the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis didn't change.
it blows my mind that you're patting yourself on the back for such utter drivel
You're assuming it's true and working backwards from there.
Science is not just a free exchange of ideas. It gives no quarter to unfounded ideas and pseudoscience. You're welcome to propose ideas, but the scientific community can and will tear them apart unless there's a strong basis.
If there is evidence, it must in general point to the truth.
you're talking out of your ass, and im done talking to you
Much like this post's OP, couldn't find any better sources? How about the actual interview in YouTube? Google the names of the two guys, that's all it takes. But no, let's all just rant about how bad anti vax people are, rather than argue whatever points they make. This is such an extreme echo chamber.
For me, it was most revealing when the EU parliament got the pharmaceutical execs to admit they did not track basic stats of the vaccine. Does it prevent infection completely? If not, does it stop retransmission? Does it minimize the severity (no reaction, slight cold, hospitalized, death)? Nope, we're not tracking that.
well that's crazy...
and got the vax earlier than most (got sorta a standby appointment for when higher risk people didn't show up)... and i got a booster...
i'm a very big fan of vaccines...
i'm still not a fan of the way the covid vaccine discussions were censored...
This is a thing that really bothers me these days, has me worried.
There's such an emphasis on "killing the messenger" (vs the message) and shutting down discussion, that we haven't seen in previous ages.
I don't know why it's a new thing, maybe it's just astroturfers/bots, otherwise it's the newer generation being okay with censoring others, and that's a bad thing (censoring others).
it's been pretty crazy...
with covid we had people dying from dumb information, and russia running huge disinfo campaigns online... so i did understand cracking down on it... but just completely stifling all questioning... at all... was a huge, and terrifying, overreaction.
....
i got banned from reddit for arguing in worldnews against obvious israeli disinformation... so that's fun
....
one main troll tactic now is to just fuck with people until you get them aggravated enough to cuss or something, then report them...
(just got a warning on here, actually... i can say any horrible, literally destructive thing i want... but if i cuss at someone or call them a name, well THEN im uncivil
That's what happens when you're trained to recognize buzz words as a strategy for defending yourself against idealogies you disagree with. Not defending yourself because you're right, but because it keeps you from being exposed too much to what the other thinks. It's easier to paint things "good, bad", file them away and go on with your day.
It isn't that they think censorship is good, it's that they're trained to censor themselves. This is just late stage social media brainrot taking full effect, among other things.