301–310 of 803 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's everyone's. Herd immunity can only be achieved if a sufficiently large part of the population is vaccinated. Also, and I know basic empathy is a foreign concept nowadays, but what if I wished for my fellow to not die of a preventable disease because a grifter sold them on an insane idea?
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> has continuously curbed free speech over the past few decades mmm do you have example at hand or you are just repeating this in the hope that other with voice the same opinion? The UK has a freedom of expression law: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part... 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart informati…
2. But some animals are more equal than others
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So the answer is: it has to be decided democratically. Okay so the voters have to choose what other people are allowed to say? Either we all have to say what the democrats want us to say and then what the republicans want us to say?
You say that like it's not already de-facto true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's everyone's. Herd immunity can only be achieved if a sufficiently large part of the population is vaccinated. Also, and I know basic empathy is a foreign concept nowadays, but what if I wished for my fellow to not die of a preventable disease because a grifter sold them on an insane idea?
Herd immunity is not a direct goal of vaccination, protection of the individual being vaccinated is. If someone needs protection, then they should get vaccinated!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
... Most vaccines do not completely prevent you from contracting a virus. They reduce the liklihood, and thus reduce the footprint. Heck, the concept of herd immunity is about protecting individuals who cannot be vaccinated at all. By reducing a virus' footprint.
what you call "herd immunity" is merely letting people die...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
but its not about the information, its about who spouts it. For example its possible for the same government entity to be 100% whitelisted in saying "DONT MASK", and also "MASK OR YOU KILL GRANNY", both are 100% allowed, but when some layperson says the one that isnt favored by the regime at the time, well, they are censored at best.
Disinformation got people killed. That creates liability. The causes a platform to suppress information. Information, backed by experts, usually requires intervention by a higher power to supress - because it doesn't carry the same liability.
Is this disinformation really more dangerous than that book? Is there some reason YouTube should be more liable for user-uploaded content, versus a bookstore being liable for content they deliberately choose to carry?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Herd immunity can only be achieved if a sufficiently large part of the population is vaccinated. ...or getting infected, of course.
Unfortunately, thus far, Covid19 has been through too many rapid changes for natural immunity to be effective. [0] The earlier forms allowed for it, but the evolution of the virus has outstripped most natural defences. [0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Covid disinformation got people killed. If they trust bad medical advice on YouTube and die, it's their problem.
No, it's everyone's. Herd immunity can only be achieved if a sufficiently large part of the population is vaccinated. Also, and I know basic empathy is a foreign concept nowadays, but what if I wished for my fellow to not die of a preventable disease because a grifter sold them on an insane idea?
what you call "herd immunity" is merely letting people die and then go "we have herd immunity" as part of your survivor bias
only solution that works most of the time, regardless of pathogen (including covid): air filtration (respirators and/or whole room)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No state has the right to exist, that thought terminating cliche makes no sense legally or philosophically. States are recognised by other states, with no legal rights involved. Also claiming that a call for the end of a state is a call for genocide is ludicrous, if that was the case then every revolution in world history would be a genocide.
Revolution is a change of government, not the end of the state. And the state of Israel is recognized by other states and the UN.
@geerlingguy: First things first: I'm on your side. But the whole content-creator industry should really start looking for and pushing alternatives to Youtube. Floatplane from LTT folks looks promising, I wish it got more attention. It seems that only Linus and Luke actually had the balls to come up with a business model and implement the darn thing. Otherwise you (and other content creators) sooner or later will hav…