491–500 of 702 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The original BMJ article doesn't draw any conclusions that I can see. It certainly doesn't suggest the Pfizer vaccine is unsafe or ineffective, as the "fact check" heavily implies.
People on Facebook aren't actually reading the journal. They're looking at the title and saying "see, the vaccine was unsafe all along." The fact checkers said "Missing context ... Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people" which is absolutely true.
Fact checking is the business of publicly labeling as false those narratives that people with real power already viewed negatively. It becomes necessary when you lie all the time. The whole notion of fact checkers is laughable -- who pays them? Do they still get paid if they 'fact check' their benefactors? There is no debate. There is no invitation for refutation. It's propaganda.
This all sounds good, but if I assert that the earth is flat on Facebook why shouldn't that simply be labelled false so others can avoid wasting their time trying to refute a ridiculous assertion? And if you agree with that, all we're arguing about is where to draw the line between "obviously false" and "disputed" facts. > It becomes necessary when you lie all the time. There are plenty of people lying and/or griftin…
You know, at some point in the history of this earth, people thought the earth is flat. Those who thought it was round were thrown in fire. Don't be that guy and let's not get there because it's easier than you think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In 2020, talking about the lab-leak theory was labelled "misinformation" and brutally purged from social media by "fact-checkers". In 2021, major news outlets started talking about it, and then it suddenly became ok to talk about it on social media again, and the "fact-checkers" did a complete 180 on the issue. They're not checking facts, they're just enforcing the mainstream view. The mainstream view is often correc…
I think people kept it taboo for as long as they could because: people were literally dying due to low vaccination rates, which were caused in large part by such specious conspiracy theories. Fact checkers did not do a 180, it is still widely considered a conspiracy theory, and its very existence harms public health even if there's a remote possibility it's true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory…
It seems to me that if you have a whistleblower account of some poor research practices for a vaccine trial, spreading it around Facebook to be commented on by random people who have no idea how to interpret it, probably isn't the best place for it. I know that means publications like these which may have something important to add to the vaccine conversation, won't be able to have millions of "likes and shares"... b…
You don't give a shit because you're happy to see Facebook silence opinions you don't want to hear. What, you think a tech monopoly will always be on your side? Or that someone will care when news that YOU care about will be censored / defeated / fake fact checked? You're just a propaganda cog with such an attitude, no better than dumb antivaxers who don't care about facts either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess it's not so hard to believe you're getting downvoted by shedding light on a situation about censorship. The first question in everybody's head when reading this article is, "Were the vaccine trials legitimate or not?" BMJ does not even come close to truthfully answering this question. With their authority as a medical journal and a very limited amount of evidence, they give a clear and incorrect impression th…
>> The first question in everybody's head when reading this article is, "Were the vaccine trials legitimate or not?" You are writing complete rubbish. BMJ does not question the legitimacy of the vaccine trials. With this sentence you are making very serious accusations to healthcare professionals. Most likely you don't even understand how clinical trials work or terminology used in the original article. If BMJ were n…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In 2020, talking about the lab-leak theory was labelled "misinformation" and brutally purged from social media by "fact-checkers". In 2021, major news outlets started talking about it, and then it suddenly became ok to talk about it on social media again, and the "fact-checkers" did a complete 180 on the issue. They're not checking facts, they're just enforcing the mainstream view. The mainstream view is often correc…
I think people kept it taboo for as long as they could because: people were literally dying due to low vaccination rates, which were caused in large part by such specious conspiracy theories. Fact checkers did not do a 180, it is still widely considered a conspiracy theory, and its very existence harms public health even if there's a remote possibility it's true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This has nothing to do with 1A. Businesses have the right to refuse service if you're being too loud in their establishment. Sorry, not sorry. If the purpose of 1a is to foster a society where speech is democratic, then it does, because corporations have largely replaced governments as the primary arbiters of information. So philosophically, the idea behind it is very relevant. The kind of power that governments abu…
That's not the purpose of the 1A. If you read 1A it's fairly basic. Congress shall make no law... 1A protects you from the government. If we dive deeper into the civil rights act no business serving the public can discriminate because of a customer's national origin, sex, religion, color, or race Unless someone can prove people are being removed from platforms for reasons above companies are well within their rights…
Right, at the time of writing, that would have been perceived as the gravest threat to free expression. But I don't think that's still the case.
> Unless someone can prove people are being removed from platforms for reasons above companies are well within their rights to refuse service.
Agreed completely, I'm not making a legal claim. My claim attempts to stand on the moral philosophy behind these laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This has nothing to do with 1A. Businesses have the right to refuse service if you're being too loud in their establishment. Sorry, not sorry. If the purpose of 1a is to foster a society where speech is democratic, then it does, because corporations have largely replaced governments as the primary arbiters of information. So philosophically, the idea behind it is very relevant. The kind of power that governments abu…
It’s pretty easy to opt out of corporate dystopia without being jailed or murdered. People love to brag about how they quit social media. This sounds like people want to have the benefits of these platforms without accepting the trade offs.
Social media is the tip of the dystopic iceberg
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It appears that the source of the confusion is the lack of articles. The 'true' headline is "revealed flaws in A Pfizer vaccine trial", the misleading interpretation is "revealed flaws in THE Pfizer vaccine trial". Lead Stories emphasizes the significance of the other trials, The BMJ emphasizes the significance of the findings, and neither is really lying. Where Lead Stories goes overboard is in the way they present…
Except that's not the headline The BMJ ran, they ran: "Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial" This lacks significant context, which is exactly what FB said of it. Taken alone, I would call that headline false. There is no evidence of notable data integrity issues in Pfizer's vaccine trial beyond the typical levels of minor documentation issues expected in large huma…
And I don't understand why so many think that BJM article tries to cast doubt on the entirety of Pfizer's vaccine operation? It is nothing like that at all. It clearly says the issue is with one research organization contracted by Pfizer. Maybe it is because you lack the context and jump to quick conclusions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It took a lot of work finding one that was English/scott. There is the famous Elon Musk tweet https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1637457156799.jpg
That's not who Elon was referring to. And the Economist is primarily owned by the Italian Agnelli family, not jewish people. I'll leave it for you to decide how many other things it gets wrong...
``` Aside from the Agnelli family, smaller shareholders in the company include Cadbury, Rothschild (21%), Schroder, Layton and other family interests as well as a number of staff and former staff shareholders. ```