YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

Post by cblconfederate » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 10:17 PM UTC

vlovich123 wrote: post #53

Took a bit of searching to find Paul’s statement where he claims to have support from studies. Does anyone know which studies these are? > A Danish study of 6000 participants found that wearing a surgical mask did not significantly reduce a person's risk of COVID-19 infection, compared to the risks facing those who did not wear masks. > And a Vietnamese study of 1600 participants found that cloth masks allow for 97%…

Post by shadowgovt » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 10:19 PM UTC

xanaxagoras wrote: post #181

kube-system wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he meant that "cloth masks aren't good enough " he could have said that. But he's a senator. His statement was a dog whistle to his base. They're not looking for an argument that people should be wearing N95s, they want to discredit all masking. The word "prevent" is a red herring -- nothing is 100% -- the goal is to decrease infection, not prevent it.

> If he meant that "cloth masks aren't good enough" he could have said that. He could have, but he didn't. You're not his editor. > But he's a senator. He's also a physician. He might know something about infectious diseases that you don't. > His statement was a dog whistle to his base. Maybe it was. So what? > They're not looking for an argument that people should be wearing N95s, they want to discredit all masking.…

Post by Covzire » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 10:19 PM UTC

_-david-_ wrote: post #171

dannyz wrote: post #82

Obviously nobody wants YouTube to be the arbiter of truth, but this whole situation has just become ridiculous. We have an elected senator spreading misinformation, perhaps willfully, perhaps not. All of the current evidence suggests that even cloth mask wearing reduces the virus spread ( https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118#sec-22 ). A cloth mask may not prevent infection for yourself, but if you are infec…

>Obviously nobody wants YouTube to be the arbiter of truth This is not obvious. Many people are advocating for YouTube to ban what is currently considered misinformation.

Post by bananabreakfast » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 10:21 PM UTC

lp0_on_fire wrote: post #159

b0sk wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Losing sec 230 protections would mean more ban-hammer for lying politicians (about elections, vaccines etc.)

I'm fine with that. It would create an even playing field in theory and that's a hell of a lot better than what we have right now which is some politicans getting to lie with impunity and others having their content removed for wrongthink.

Post by AzzieElbab » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 10:22 PM UTC

chlodwig wrote: post #105

andybak wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow this reasoning. An imperfect mask is surely going to result in a borderline contacts with infection being non-infections. The debate is "by how much" and without really clear evidence to the contrary, the precautionary principle wins. Wearing masks is usually only a minor inconvenience. I'm gobsmacked how it's become such a battleground.

Wearing masks is usually only a minor inconvenience. It's a minor inconvenience at the grocery store. It's a major inconvenience to wear one at gyms. It's a major inconvenience with regards to socializing with friends (a core human need), I really hate not being able to read other people's facial expressions when I talk to them. It's a major inconvenience to require it at schools. It's horrible for kids not to be abl…