691–700 of 814 posts
The song contains the line "The pandemic ain't real/They just planned it". I believe that the solution to incorrect or dangerous speech is only more speech and oppose YouTube's takedown. However, it's absurd to say this is "political" and thus not medical misinformation. It's clearly a political statement in support of a political movement that maliciously lies about public health.
Will I am the walrus be fact checked next?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Boy am I tired of partisan politics.
Amen. I just wish that all politicians would remain more consistent in their views, or at the very least admit that they previously said the opposite but have since changed their mind. I do not intend for this post to be anti Biden. Trump is also a hypocrite, just not on his pro covid vaccine stance.
"I personally believe X, but my constituents overwhelmingly support Y, so I will be voting for Y."
i disagree with censoring. but i want to pose a question. if i have q WordPress blog on a $5vps, and you post a comment saying my blog post is stupid. its my vps,im paying for it, i can delete the comment if i want right? where do you draw the line? how big exactly does my blog have to get before this is considered big tech censorship?
However American law requires bakers to bake cakes for events they as an individual disagree with. An old lady florist was individuals fined for refusing to do an event she thought was morally questionable.
It seems the only 'people' with rights to conscience are multi billion dollar companies conveniently doing the bidding of the party in power. So that's strange.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But, pushing a leaky vaccine across a large population is a license to get mutations and cause new variants in a large population. Fact check: vaccines do not cause variants. Citation: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00544-9 Sense check: most variants of concern emerged in countries prior to mass vaccination. Short version: why would vaccine-induced immunity provide materially different selection pressur…
Fact check your fact check: > "Not all vaccines prevent infection. Some, known as leaky vaccines, prolong host survival or reduce disease symptoms without preventing viral replication and transmission. Although leaky vaccines provide anti-disease benefits to vaccinated individuals, new research by CIDD’s Andrew Read, David Kennedy and colleagues at the Avian Oncogenic Virus Group in the United Kingdom, and The Univer…
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorris/2021/08/08/joe-rog...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point of repealing section 230 is to end YouTube as we know it. Basically, YouTube becomes the Washington Post and can carry fully moderated content that it selects and publishes. YouTube's current business model only exists by legislative fiat. It's time to give power back to the courts and reinstate the precedent of Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_I…
Literally impossible as long as the First Amendment exists. You cannot compel speech with legislation the way you apparently want to. Section 230 is just a way to shortcut litigation, the First Amendment is ultimately the protector of YouTube, and will remain so as long as the United States remains a country. Repealing 230 would just trigger a new set of lawsuits, one of which would end up in front of the Supreme Cou…
Remember, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. "held that Prodigy was liable as the publisher of the content created by its users because it exercised editorial control over the messages on their bulletin boards in three ways: 1) by posting Content Guidelines for users, 2) by enforcing those guidelines with 'Board Leaders', and 3) by utilizing screening software designed to remove offensive language."
The State removed the above liability via Section 230, which paved the way for YouTube to become the monolith it is today. Reattaching liability to YouTube would force it to choose between an editorial model (Prodigy) or a platform model (CompuServe). It would not get the luxury of the editorial model without paying the corresponding costs of that model. In other words, it would put YouTube on the same playing field as the Washington Post and other traditional news sources.
For those who think this isn’t political, check out what they posted on the POTUS Twitter the day before https://twitter.com/potus/status/1451544259992203266 The goal of this is to reclaim “let’s go Brandon” and it’s obvious. EDIT: for those who don’t know what “Let’s go Brandon” means, a child comment linked to a 40 second video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ8asiDn2_A&feature=youtu.be For those who don’t watch or…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Killing hosts isn't beneficial to the virus survival, quite the opposite in fact. An infection that super aggressively reproduces but due to antibodies fails to gain a foothold beyond the nasopharynx in vaccinated people doing little damage to the host but spreading effectively to both vaccinated individuals who largely have the above experience and unvaccinated who get miserably sick and sometimes drown in their own…
> Killing hosts isn't beneficial to the virus survival, quite the opposite in fact. An infection that super aggressively reproduces but due to antibodies fails to gain a foothold beyond the nasopharynx in vaccinated people doing little damage to the host but spreading effectively to both vaccinated individuals who largely have the above experience and unvaccinated who get miserably sick and sometimes drown in their o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well established scientific concensus. If you're referring to anything related to Covid there's no well-established scientific consensus it literally just happened around year and a half ago it's impossible to have scientific consensus. Even the most respected scientists are saying they don't know about a lot of things related to covid. also well-established scientific consensus is not an ideal goal post . Galileo wa…
> also well-established scientific consensus is not an ideal goal post . It indeed is. As a layperson who knows nothing about a field, not even a closely related field your best bet is to accept the scientific consensus. And by best bet I mean that that that is the choice that will give you the highest expected value of success. People keep pointing at the cases from the past (sometimes from the very far past, like w…
you got it right.. it's a bet
Science is not the ultimate source of truth, it is data with a risk reward attached that you can use for your own critical thinking
I do agree with you though that it should be heavily weighted in your thinking.
But people now are treating as an infallible religion that you can outsource your critical thinking to...which is scary imo.