Censorship backfires

Censorship simply makes people want to find out why someone was censored.

YouTube&list=RDCMUC3M7l8ved_rYQ45AVzS0RGA&start_radio=1

Even if they were to censor the link above it would become available on another video website. That is what happened to Ron Paul.

https://odysee.com/@RonPaul:d

When my government tried to censor Iran's PressTV website I was drawn to it to find out why they censored it. That is how I found out about Daniel Hale.

It depends how censorship is implimented.

Say you have a meeting. You can censor the minutes for publication. That makes people want to know what’s in them.
But you can also withhold minutes being written on a certain topic. That generally arouses less interest.

@shavixmir said
It depends how censorship is implimented.

Say you have a meeting. You can censor the minutes for publication. That makes people want to know what’s in them.
But you can also withhold minutes being written on a certain topic. That generally arouses less interest.

@Metal-Brain
And for you, that means the ONLY thing on your mind is BIDEN LOST because of MASSIVE voter fraud, even though that Ninja IDIOT said there was no evidence of fraud AND there were a few HUNDRED votes less for Trump and near 100 more for Biden.

All that proves is they were incompetent because NONE of them had any experience in vote count, handling voter machines and the like.
Now as a result Arizona has to replace ALL those voter machines because they were handled by non vetted people.

But of course you will never stoop to answer THOSE charges.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
And for you, that means the ONLY thing on your mind is BIDEN LOST because of MASSIVE voter fraud, even though that Ninja IDIOT said there was no evidence of fraud AND there were a few HUNDRED votes less for Trump and near 100 more for Biden.

All that proves is they were incompetent because NONE of them had any experience in vote count, handling voter machine ...[text shortened]... ey were handled by non vetted people.

But of course you will never stoop to answer THOSE charges.

@metal-brain said
Censorship simply makes people want to find out why someone was censored.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBejhtjVrLE&list=RDCMUC3M7l8ved_rYQ45AVzS0RGA&start_radio=1

Even if they were to censor the link above it would become available on another video website. That is what happened to Ron Paul.

https://odysee.com/@RonPaul:d

When my government tried to censor I ...[text shortened]... bsite I was drawn to it to find out why they censored it. That is how I found out about Daniel Hale.

@ponderable said
So it is okay for your distributing lies?

That is waht the case is about.

Since you distribute lies frequently (SARS-Cov2 has not been isolated anyone?)you want to be entitled to do that probbaly. But it is hurting people massively. Especially those who are unable to understand how science works (this could include you)

@metal-brain said
Wrong thread. This is about censorship.

@metal-brain said
The best way to convince people something is not true is to prove it wrong.
Censorship is resorted to when they cannot prove something wrong.

Censorship is the result of a failure to prove something wrong.

@metal-brain said
The best way to convince people something is not true is to prove it wrong.
Censorship is resorted to when they cannot prove something wrong.

Censorship is the result of a failure to prove something wrong.

@metal-brain said
The best way to convince people something is not true is to prove it wrong.
Censorship is resorted to when they cannot prove something wrong.

Censorship is the result of a failure to prove something wrong.

@shavixmir said
No. Not at all.
There are multiple reasons for censorship.

A very common reason is privacy, for example. Documents which are released to the public on individual demand have other people’s names, addresses, etc. censored.

Another reason is that some information (say in a meeting) can’t be reasonably interpretted without context. So, the agenda point is consored from the minutes until a communication can be written which also explains context.

@kevcvs57 said
No censorship when applied correctly is there for the public good. Something becomes disinformation worthy of censorship when it becomes potentially harmful.
Anti vaxxer propaganda, covid denial, The big lie; all have been effectively proven false and harmful so are fair game for censorship.
The Daniel Hale case, as with the plight of most whistleblowers is a much greyer area and the case for punishing or censoring these people is far from proven.

@metal-brain said
Fauci's multiple lies are harmful.
Do you support censoring him?

@kevcvs57 said
No I’d rather expose public servants when they lie or make mistakes. Part of his job is to give us accurate science based information, if he intentionally veers off that road he should have his licence revoked and he should not be a public spokesperson any longer if he does not have a good enough reason for doing so.
If your talking about the mask thing then it was explaine ...[text shortened]... the general public buying up precious stocks would be disadvantageous to the general public health.