660
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 03 Jan 2024
660 points (94.7% liked)
politics
18075 readers
2755 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
When a topic has been covered by multiple national newspapers, it's just very silly to claim censorship.
The White House press secretary has said they worked with tech companies to ban misinformation. The Twitter Files showed many government agencies giving them guidance to for the rules around covid misinformation, then giving lists of tweets to take action on for breaking said terms and conditions. Like or not what goofy things people thought about covid, the government telling them to shut down these posts is clearly against the first amendment.
The actual information released in "the Twitter files" showed the opposite of what musky's pet propagandists said it did.
You seem to actually admit that what happened was identifying posts that violated the terms and conditions of private companies. No demands or threats were issued.Does the government have no right to speak truth?
If a government agency notices a lethal hazard in your town that doesn't technically violate the law, should they be prohibited from telling you and your neighbors about the danger?
things change over time.
for SOME TIME, it was treated as laughable misinformation, and directly censored... later it wasn't. (check out coverage on Jon Stewart when he talked about it when you weren't supposed to)
at a LATER TIME it was no longer bad to talk about it.
sorry you have no idea what's being discussed here.
im sorry if you really think that there was no censorship involving covid discussions online.
and i dont really care how silly you are.
They weren't censored very well, clearly. And considering a lot of COVID misinformation was telling you to inject horse dewormer instead of getting a vaccine, I wish it was censored better. In a public health emergency, I'm pretty okay with requiring statements to be scientifically and medically sound.
Second, it was misinformation at the time. Researchers and the general scientifically community believed the evidence pointed to other theories. It wasn't until later when we had more evidence that it emerged as a serious possibility.
That's how science works. Unless an idea is supported by clear and sound evidence, it's untrue. The lab leak theory can be misinformation at one point in time and viable at another point in time -- if I predicted heavy snowfall on a 74 degree day in June, it would very obviously be wrong. If I predict it for a 20 degree day in December however, it's actually plausible. It blows my mind that this is a novel concept for some people.
what??? no it wasn't. it was a plausible hypothesis.
that is not how science works. science works by a free exchange of ideas
no. something can be completely true but not at all supported by evidence. You are confusing "truth" with "a broader scientific belief"
that doesn't make sense, and isn't what "misinformation" even means.
well that's the stupidest analogy i've ever read... the "date" and "temperature" of the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis didn't change.
it blows my mind that you're patting yourself on the back for such utter drivel
You're assuming it's true and working backwards from there.
Science is not just a free exchange of ideas. It gives no quarter to unfounded ideas and pseudoscience. You're welcome to propose ideas, but the scientific community can and will tear them apart unless there's a strong basis.
If there is evidence, it must in general point to the truth.
you're talking out of your ass, and im done talking to you