261–270 of 814 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're adding things that aren't there. The lyrics are just "the jab stops the spread." That is true.
I was unaware that we interpret poetry literally in 2021.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But is the pandemic over? It's clearly not, and that was the point of the lyric. Countries with 90%+ vaccination rates are still having lockdowns because of breakthrough cases.
You're adding things that aren't there. The lyrics are just "the jab stops the spread." That is true.
I say this as someone who's vaccinated; that is not true. It can limit the spread by reducing the viral load you give off, but you can still be vaccinated, get the virus, be asymptomatic (or not) and transmit it.
Article goes out of its way to avoid saying what's actually in the song or video.
So, now you cannot make even art with dissident ideas. Welcome 1984!
The art was made without issue. Distribution is not a right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this Stalinist "you can't say that," bullshit is to keep saying it, louder. So you don't dispute that it is disinformation. Is idea that is that someone refusing to host disinformation is a good reason to disinform, louder?
I dispute that disinformation or not is a reason for censoring it. And I dispute the repute of those labeling things "disinformation", specifically.
If I wrote a rap song with "stick an artichoke in your butt" and magically a hundred people follow the advice and hurt themselves, someone for sure will at least attempt to censor my song. The imitation problem has been with us for thousands years, but social media made it a lot worse by dramatically augmenting the audience, then moving a lot faster than laws, and allowing some grey zones where a law prohibiting this and that would be too draconian and no law makes similar scenarios very possible. That's where we should be the ones who censor ourselves when we suspect that someone could be damaged by our words. That rapper didn't, because he pursuits fame and money, and Fox News by jumping in his defense acted exactly as one would expect from a source that has nothing to do with journalism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems to be a really common thing! It's incredibly frustrating when reading some articles about someone being cancelled or the like.
It's a speciality of Fox News. It promotes the outrage well when you leave out the actually objectionable part. Others do it as well of course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly I don't think it's that they identify as entrepreneurs or business owners, I think it's just that they identify as progressives, and there is an incredibly prominent pro-censorship current in modern progressive ideology. I say this because I've definitely interacted with many people in real life who are not the "entrepreneur" or "pro corporate" types yet happily cheer on the censorship being practiced by big…
Progressives are not necessarily for censorship (though some are). But this "private censorship" is a consequence of not regulating new media industries. So seeing some people complain about censorship after being against regulation has very much "you wanted this, serves you right" vibe.
Which really just goes back to the two party, my enemy or my friend trope. Tribalism etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the substance of your argument: that the "pandemic" is not a medical matter, or that "ain't real" is not misinfo?
It's a song, not a scientific journal article.
There's a segment of the US population that believes and spreads the harmful misinformation in memes and YouTube videos. That's all well and good when talking about aliens building pyramids or whatever. But currently we have this same segment of the population refusing to get vaccinated, mask up, wash their hands, etc etc. Those actions are harmful to society as a whole and should be treated like the attacks they are.
As someone with lung issues, it angers me deeply that there's millions of Americans who couldn't give the tiniest shit to take actions that might save my life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to provide context "NIH admits Fauci lied about funding Wuhan gain-of-function experiments" [1] If there's no one even making art with borderline lyrics, nobody may realize there's something besides the status quo. I'm not saying that I agree with all dissidents opinions, but I strongly disagree with messing with art. It's music for god's sake. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28972283
This "art" is not being produced in a vacuum. YouTube is fighting a problem with disinformation that has significant implications on a public health crisis. I don't see why they should respond any differently, simply because someone is singing the disinformation.