@metal-brain saidI didn't.
I am not an objector to vaccination in general. Why did you call me an anti-vaxer?
@vivify saidWhat anti-vaxers? Wanting safer vaccines does not make a person anti-vax. Don't you want safer vaccines?
It has been fact-checked. Anti-vaxxers are going the way of creationists and flat-earthers; no one cares about their opinions because they're wrong and loony.
Regarding the 1st Amendment, it's a privately owned website. The 1st Amendment only protects from government hindrance of free speech.
That said, I don't see why FB or Twitter blocked this story and I don't agree that they should.
@metal-brain saidYou said FB is blocking anti-vaccine posts. If they're the normal anti-vax group, that's who I'm referring to. If it's posts referring to the outbreak you referenced, I don't have a problem with it, so long as it's not being used to spread anti-vaxxer propaganda.
What anti-vaxers? Wanting safer vaccines does not make a person anti-vax. Don't you want safer vaccines?
@vivify saidI think they are ads.
You said FB is blocking anti-vaccine posts. If they're the normal anti-vax group, that's who I'm referring to. If it's posts referring to the outbreak you referenced, I don't have a problem with it, so long as it's not being used to spread anti-vaxxer propaganda.
What is anti-vax propaganda? I posted an article showing a polio vaccine that did more harm than good. It is a fact, but some people (like Suzianne) think that is undermining the public trust in vaccines in general and is dangerous. Is that anti-vax propaganda?
Should my post proving a specific vaccine to be unsafe be censored?
@metal-brain saidYou earlier in the thread:
What is anti-vax propaganda? I posted an article showing a polio vaccine that did more harm than good. It is a fact, but some people (like Suzianne) think that is undermining the public trust in vaccines in general and is dangerous. Is that anti-vax propaganda?
Should my post proving a specific vaccine to be unsafe be censored?
"If I can find one single case of vaccines causing more harm than good I can prove you wrong."
This is the problem; that a factual story like the one you referenced will be used with the same logic: one case proves vaccination wrong.
I have no problem with facts; but I understand how facts can be twisted and how an anti-vaccination group can twist the story to discredit all vaccinations. Keeping this in mind, I can see why FB would block the story, in order to keep it from being used as fuel for anti-vaxxers.
@metal-brain saidNo they provide a platform for citizens to publish stuff and make their money from offering up those citizens to the marketing industry. They are not publishing anything, we are.
That is how the Nazis rationalized it.
Facebook and Twitter have taken on the role of publisher. They cannot legally have it both ways.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJ-HIAY0DhE
Right or left wing extremists and conspiracy theorists can set up their own platform, they will unfortunately get the numbers that will draw advertisers.
Your another one that’s elevating your right to say certain stuff over my right to not hear certain stuff.
@averagejoe1 saidPerfectly reasonable 2 cents IMO.
My 2 cents, I of course want Freedom more than anything, so it is better to allow (?) these decisions by corps rather than government getting involved. We are people, corps have been adjudicated as entities sharing the same status, so we can just have at it see where the chips fall. I know, I know, my thought is only worth 2 cents.
To my mind only governments can imperil ‘free speech’ every other case is a case of one citizen saying stuff and another citizen electing not to listen to that stuff.
If my local pub started to attract noisy trouble makers the landlord can either ban them or risk losing far more custom when his regulars, who like a quiet pint, take their business elsewhere.
1 edit
@vivify saidIn other words, you think the truth must be censored because the truth is a threat to public trust in vaccines.
You earlier in the thread:
"If I can find one single case of vaccines causing more harm than good I can prove you wrong."
This is the problem; that a factual story like the one you referenced will be used with the same logic: one case proves vaccination wrong.
I have no problem with facts; but I understand how facts can be twisted and how an anti-vaccination group c ...[text shortened]... can see why FB would block the story, in order to keep it from being used as fuel for anti-vaxxers.
You are essentially saying the truth is dangerous and must be suppressed. The only danger is people like you who are a threat to the truth.
1 edit
@philokalia saidFirst of all, FB and Twitter are not news agencies and have no editorial accountability. They can post anything they want or delete anything they want; nothing to do with censorship or denial of 1st Amendment rights.
My post was inspired by seeing this incredible Tweet:
https://twitter.com/SohrabAhmari/status/1316446749729398790
Here is an interesting article from the Federalist on the situation:
[quote]Twitter joined Facebook on Wednesday in censoring the New York Post’s bombshell story detailing the discovery of emails concerning Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings.
...[text shortened]... om/2020/10/14/twitter-blocks-users-from-linking-to-the-new-york-posts-bombshell-hunter-biden-report/
Secondly, go to the source:
https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/
The article alleges that Ukrainian officials repeatedly attempted to get Hunter Biden to use his influence to arrange a meeting w/then-VP Joe Biden. That's hardly newsworthy. There were probably thousands of people who would have liked to catch the VP's ear. Doesn't mean it actually happened.
"Investigations by the press, during impeachment [of President Trump], and even by two Republican-led Senate committees whose work was decried as 'not legitimate' and political by a GOP colleague, have all reached the same conclusion: that Joe Biden carried out official US policy toward Ukraine and engaged in no wrongdoing." This is quoted from: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-54553132
Thirdly, the NY Post is a tabloid, famous for sensationalism, frivolous stories, looney-tunes headlines ("Headless body in topless bar" ), and political bias.
And finally, nobody voted for Ivanka. Nobody's going to be voting for Hunter either. There's no story there.
1 edit
@metal-brain saidI already said I don't agree with sites blocking articles like the Biden one. I'm just saying I can understand why some articles are blocked, given the current climate of propaganda and misinformation, which is largely pushed by conservative outlets.
In other words, you think the truth must be censored because the truth is a threat to public trust in vaccines.
You are essentially saying the truth is dangerous and must be suppressed. The only danger is people like you who are a threat to the truth.
@vivify saidI didn't post any misinformation. I posted a fact!
I already said I don't agree with sites blocking articles like the Biden one. I'm just saying I can understand why some articles are blocked, given the current climate of propaganda and misinformation, which is largely pushed by conservative outlets.
You want facts to be censored. You want people to have a false perception of vaccines being more safe than they really are. That means you are a threat to peoples safety, not the truth!
You are the problem!
@vivify saidLet's do a bias check, then, shall we, vivify?
I already said I don't agree with sites blocking articles like the Biden one. I'm just saying I can understand why some articles are blocked, given the current climate of propaganda and misinformation, which is largely pushed by conservative outlets.
When emails from the DNC surfaced, did the news media do a complete freeze out of the story? No.
So why here?
Notice that neither Hunter nor Joe Biden have spoken in their own defense and
say that the emails are FAKE NEWS.
Don't youo find that a bit odd, vivify?
2 edits
@earl-of-trumps saidFacebook and Twitter aren't the "news media". Conservatives need to stop getting their news from those sites; this is why they believe so many fake news stories.
When emails from the DNC surfaced, did the news media do a complete freeze out of the story? No.
So why here?
Notice that neither Hunter nor Joe Biden have spoken in their own defense and
say that the emails are FAKE NEWS.
Don't youo find that a bit odd, vivify?
Yes, which is why I said twice that FB/Twitter shouldn't have blocked it.