Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

It's integral for the executive office to be able to head off garbage information like that spewed by MAGAs and antivax people, no one forced twitter or facebook to censor that garbage, but they chose to. This judgement is garbage and the judge's decision will pretty quickly be vacated by the appellate court because the executive branch has been able to contact newspapers and other media since the beginning of the nation. It seems to me like this judge thinks that the judicial branch is the only "powerful" branch of the government these days, like the Supreme Court seems to think as well.

Trust and affection are two different emotions that I'm able to separate.

For example, I like Adidas shoes but when they boast about sustainability I question the truth in that and their intentions.

I prefer Pepsi over Coke but I don't trust either to be truthful in their marketing. I think it's bullshit that Santa prefers Coke, for one he's not even a real person, but I don't dislike Coke for using Santa as a mascot.

I hate Disney though and I firmly believe they're among one of the worst companies on the planet. I oppose anything they do out of principle and believe every decision they make needs to answer yes to the question "Will this make us a billion dollars?" I hope to live to see the day they fold and disappear forever.

So no, I don't dislike every corporation and my inherit distrust doesn't undermine my views one bit. I don't know how one can possibly trust a capitalist company whose motives are primarily profit driven. I don't know how one could think a company stands for anything that wouldn't make them money or would honestly have a goal that wasn't driven by profits.

A good barometer on if a company has morals is if they use rainbow logos in Saudi Arabia during June. Try coming up with a single argument for why a company world proudly display them in North America but not in the Middle East without mentioning profits or market share, and good luck. I personally think it's completely indefensible.

Vaccines aren't gene therapy because MRNA involves chucking components at your cell for it to post process into stuff not permanently writing changes to the blueprints of the cells themselves. It neither makes any change to the cells themselves nor persists beyond the material being processed out of your system.

Gene therapy involves making modifications to cells. Presenting MRNA as gene therapy makes people afraid to use it because they erroneously believe it will permanently alter their DNA.

The balance of evidence is that horse paste is between useless and harmful depending on dosage. The average patient will discover their doctor/pharmacist wont provide it and getting it yourself from the internet is even more harmful than clinical administration because of a users inability to obtain or administer a less than disastrous dose.

A high risk patient who has say a 3% chance of mortality without a vaccine will likely die or experience painful and harmful consequences if they avoid a vaccine extremely unlikely to do them harm in favor of a "cure" that doesn't work.

I know you have heard all this. Years later if you are still spreading this then you are willfully spreading lies and its not OK.

Yes indeed, I was just being a bit cheeky given GP's other discussion of the definition of 'opinion' :)

Again, I encourage you to read the ruling. It addresses this claim quite thoroughly:

> Traditionally, the First Amendment imposes limitations only on “state action, not action by private parties.” Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 567 (1972).

> However, plaintiffs “may establish a First Amendment claim based on private conduct if that conduct ‘can fairly be seen as state action.'” Id. (quoting Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 838 (1982)).

> the Court instructed that “[i]t is axiomatic that a state may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” Id. (quoting Lee v. Macon Cnty. Bd. of Ed., 267 F.Supp. 458, 475-476 (M.D. Ala.), affd sub nom. Wallace v. U S, 389 U.S. 215 (1967)).

Essentially: yes, you do not have a right to post on Twitter, you cannot sue Twitter for violating your First Amendment rights. But the courts have repeatedly affirmed that this does not create a loophole for the government to launder unconstitutional acts through private parties.