15
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
15 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
19 readers
2 users here now
This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!
founded 1 year ago
That's a whole lot of claims with little to no sources backing them up.
Which ones specifically? These are all fairly well known at this point. Let me ask, if I provide them, do you think it would influence you in any way?
All of them. If it's the truth I will see it.
But be warned. No tabloid or backwater new articles. Actual studies and statements.
I'll do that once I get to a computer. I forsee my effort being for nothing though.
Put up or shut up.
This comment was unnecessary. There's no need to be disrespectful, I'll be home in about 10 hours.
If you keep wasting everyone’s time prepare for more of it.
How am I wasting anyone's time? They're free to look up my claims at any time. Here's a tidbit if you're so inconvenienced:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/graisondangor/2021/09/19/cdcs-six-foot-social-distancing-rule-was-arbitrary-says-former-fda-commissioner
You didn't claim otherwise to social distancing. And this has to do with further research giving us better understanding.
Especially with people knew with confidence at the time. With everything being hectic.
You are still wasting my and everyone's TIME.
I said that our government (US if that wasn't clear) wasn't suggesting solutions to the pandemic solely based on science in many cases. The social distancing mandate was an example of that. Criticism of this (the social distancing/masking solutions, etc.) was silenced and categorized as misinformation. So yes, I did say exactly that here:
"They were calling certain things misinformation before they themselves knew. What gives them authority to do this and who actually decides what is true?"
No you didn't. Liar
And you haven't proven or shown that "They were calling certain things misinformation before they themselves knew."
Whoever "they" are.
I literally copied and pasted my own comment; I don't understand where the confusion is coming from. "They" are the "Whitehouse" (via the FBI) that literally are what the trial of the post on which we're having this discussion were accused of; so yes, that's exactly what I said. They (the FBI/"Whitehouse") are on trial for influencing what should be sensored on social media as well as what information could be released during document requests to journalists. This included (based on the Twitter files) comments criticizing measures mandated by the government, including masking and social distancing requirements along with quarantine mandates.
My first article simply gave an example of one part of the mandates that weren't based on science with more stories to come once I can use an actual PC. It wasn't supposed to be my be-all-end-all source for everything I posited.
I copied what you said. You claimed otherwise and said something different before, even if you repasted your comment.
Now you are on to ANOTHER claim about the FBI censoring after specifying "they".
Still no proof or good sources from you.
WASTING TIME
You call it wasting time, I call it protecting our freedom of speech, including yours. If you can't follow what I'm saying I'm sure other people can and will. The article on the OP is literally accusing the FBI under Biden of doing these things, and have given evidence showing as much, so I didn't feel the need to give evidence of this.
You don't care about anything beyond pushing your own narrative.
You keep jumping around to different claims, with no sources backing them up for what you said.
You claim to be protecting freedom of speech, but you aren't. You are only protecting bad faith actors, bots, and liars.
The line has to be drawn somewhere, and when it come to the health and safety of the public somethings have to take priority. Necessary things from what I have seen.
And this case is being appealed.
I disagree, and that should be okay. I shouldn't be censored for doing so. I shouldn't be put on a list of concerning individuals like the FBI has been proven to be doing as a result of the Twitter files. Seriously if you'd just read up on it your eyes would be opened. Our current (and past) leadership along with corporate elites are trying to scare you from "bad actors" in order that you give up your freedom. This allows them to stay in power.
I'm not "jumping around" on any claims I have made. All claims I have made are verifiable, and have followed logically throughout this discussion. I have backed up some of them with sources (time permitting) which you of course have disputed. If you take issue with any of my claims, be specific. I'm happy to provide sources when I have the time.
Also, of course they're going to appeal. Why would they give up on being able to censor us now?
You just keep making claims. With no proof or evidence.
You just made another one about using “bad actors” to give up on freedom, then have the gall to say you aren’t jumping around.
Haven’t proven anything. Haven’t shown your way to be right. Haven’t shown any consistency.
Your rambling at this point.
STOP WASTING TIME
Edit: so much for getting me a bunch of sources after 10 hours to "get to my computer"
Not even enough info to know who "they" or "them" are when referenced in their comment.
If you'd look at the article in the OP you'd see I'm talking about the Whitehouse via the FBI.