121–130 of 986 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Were an individual legitimately trying to make a point, they would come up with an example not already in the set.
Are you not OK with that example of speech though? Dangerous speech seems to make you uncomfortable no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are very real people who have been harmed by side effects from the vaccine. Whether the virus itself would've been more deadly is a question for another time, but if your loved ones were unlucky enough to get myocarditis from the vaccine, and you were silenced on social media, sometimes invisibly like you're being gaslit, and so were the doctors and researchers, it's easier to understand the strong emotional re…
I’m sure you mean well, but one of the few things we know for sure is that the virus is way, way, way more deadly than vaccine. If you are going to overlook all those RCTs run all throughout the world with different types of vaccines and huge populations of people, then you really should reflect on your own analysis of the data. I'm not saying the vaccine is perfectly safe, as few things are, but it's obviously, prov…
I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I think the longest lasting legacy of covid will be the distrust it created for big government, big pharma, and big tech.
Weird take imo, if anything I think trust in big pharmacy among the mainstream has increased, although maybe the fringe moved a bit more, most people still got vaccinated etc., Republicans were already anti everything before the pandemic.
Relevant context - this was written by a member of the team who released the Twitter files, alongside Matt Tabibi.
Also, readers should know that The Free Press is Bari Weiss¹. Vanity Fair described her as "a provocateur", which is the kindest-possible interpretation of her editorial philosophy. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bari_Weiss
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know. It should (and I think has) increase distrust in social media and big tech/gov but distrust in pharma? I don't know. I'm still waiting for everyone to drop dead from vaccine related injuries (I've paid this more earnest attention than most people this glib at least) — most people, I think correctly for the most part, regard the nu-antivax thing that came about during covid to basically be the realm of i…
And they haven't stopped agitating. And probably won't stop. Which makes me wonder: with the degree of weaponization of the internet on the side of the anti-vaxxers will the next pandemic be 'the big one'? Enough people that refuse vaccination and you are looking at an entirely different probable outcome. Here in NL a small army of foaming-at-the-mouth conspiracy theorists did their utmost to undermine the vaccinatio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Downvoted because it completely misses the point, which is that a private company should not be told by the government to restrict speech, even if ( especially if) that speech is in conflict with the "official policy" the government has decreed. > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the ri…
Free speach isn't absolute. There's plenty of examples in life already where you can't say whatever you want.
This is what we get when we expect corporations to police speech, and when governments pressure them to do it. We really would be better off with no censorship. Even allowing obvious conspiracy theories and fake news is better than trying to police the truth and getting it wrong. When moderators get it wrong even one time they lose trust forever and give the conspiracy theorists even more ammo — in some cases by maki…
if they are gonna to have all that, which i think they need to survive as a business, then the next best thing would be to empower users to have more control over the content they see ala email filtering
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Downvoted because it completely misses the point, which is that a private company should not be told by the government to restrict speech, even if ( especially if) that speech is in conflict with the "official policy" the government has decreed. > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the ri…
Shouldn’t it be up to the company? Congress made no law, no on forced Twitter from what I’m reading, they made a choice. That is their right. Demanding that people hold an antagonistic or untrusting view of government speech is no different than any other sort of speech code demand.