this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
38 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
12 readers
1 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 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You couldn't know they didn't have data if they didn't have the ability to present it. Once censored, it's impossible to tell what media is, that's the point of censorship.
You can't know if what was censored was false information, if you don't have the data on what was said.
Questioning is the heart and soul of science. Doubting included.
To censor doubt is a demand for agreement, and an intimidation of dissent.
There was a time I would believe you whole heartedly.
I despise book bans.
I see people try to censor other people's very existence.
I hate China's authoritarian laws.
I wish to strive to allow as much free speech and liberty reasonably possible.
Then COVID happened. Misinformation, narrative pushing, and just plain lying. My grandma died from the virus in a hospital not consistently wearing masks or even checking for it in the first place. A hospital wear fox news plays abound and nurses proudly talk about their "knowing" of what actually is happening.
I have to ask myself, is this worth it?
I don't think so. A line must be drawn somewhere.
This is bullshit. They were calling certain things misinformation before they themselves knew. What gives them authority to do this and who actually decides what is true? At the time many scientists, including the CDC director (who was forcibly sidelined after sharing his position), were saying we should investigate the lab leak theory, and they were all silenced as a result. Scientists were saying that they wouldn't have suggested quarantine (including the UKs top health advisor) as the understaffed medical/health facilities would cause more death than quarantines would save, they were saying that masks had little to no impact on CORONA viruses in the past and peer-reviewed articles suggesting this were literally removed from websites; the list goes on. Meanwhile the MSM was literally spreading misinformation like the Ivermectin story or the vaccine stopping spread story. You really have to trust someone quite a bit to just go along with this while all your freedoms are diminishing.
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.
People posting pro horse-medicine posts on social media aren't ever going to be doing anything close to "science".
And this romantic concept of "questioning is the heart and soul of science" is just a banal platitude. Rigorous testing and record keeping is the heart and soul of science. Latching on to conspiracy theories is not even tangentially related to science.
You've got to do your homework. This has already been proven to be a false narrative set up by MSNBC and CNN (and their subsidiaries). You're behind. Ivermectin has been prescribed to humans for decades.
But not for coronaviruses. For parasites. And not in the doses that are intended for animals, but for humans. And not purchased from a farm supply store, but through a pharmacy.
That's not what I said though. They spread a lie by saying it was only for horses, and were never silenced or corrected. They were allowed to lie. "Rules for thee, but not rules for me."
Some people were actually buying the horse variant of it...
I'd like a verified source showing this was actually occurring at any sort of large scale. Assuming you have it, does that make it okay to suggest Ivermectin (the drug) is only for horses like the media did? Is lying okay when it's done to save lives? I'm just curious.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/covid-treatments-evolving-threat/story?id=75946569
That story uses only anecdotal, non-scientifically recorded data. 50 - 60 calls a day simply to ask about it, and one or two cases of people actually using it. This same story claims people were drinking hand sanitizer, I guess we need to start lying about that as well.
Unless you are saying the president of Missouri's Poison Center is lying, then this is still substantive.
And more than what you have provided so far. Can't claim it is lie either without evidence.
They literally don't provide any data. It could be one call and they'd say they're "still responding."
Still substantive.
They don't even say the 50-60 calls they are getting are just for Ivermectin, just that they're related to COVID. Why do you think they worded it that way, to be misleading maybe?
You didn't read the article did you?
You're being extremely disrespectful. I did in fact read the article, but it's clearly a biased article with no actual measured data.
No you didn’t. It talks about it.
Making another claim about bias won’t help you. And still leaves the rest of what I said.
I'll not be discussing with you further. Why would I? You are literally just repeating that I didn't read the article, and have made no claims against what I said. I think we should censor YOU since I know I read it but you keep claiming I didn't, which could be classified as misinformation.
Then you are admitting you are wrong and aren’t acting in good faith. The literal next section of that article mentions it.
Just repeating yourself won’t make you right. And above all else, you haven’t proven anything today.
Firstly, you saying I'm admitting that I'm wrong is arguing in bad faith by definition, as I never said that. Quote the part of the article you're talking about specifically, and I'll refute that, that way I'll be forced to read it. Also, ciritizing me for repeating myself is ironic considering you keep repeating yourself.
You suspiciously left out all the context of the discussion. I can only imagine why you'd do this. Haha
Horse dewormer was mentioned because that's what the maga cultists were using, because (sane) doctors wouldn't prescribe it to humans for a coronavirus.
You agree that Ivermectin isn't for coronavirus, right? Right?
There has been little to no research allowed that might prove otherwise, but some countries (that were denied access to the vaccine for profit reasons) seemed to have great success using it. That being said, calling it a horse dewormer within context is literally just lying. I'm actually giving them a chance when I leave out said context.
Little to no research? Did you bother looking? I found quite a few on Google scholar. Here's one: https://www.kumc.edu/about/news/news-archive/jama-ivermectin-study.html
Do you mean little to no research that comes to the conclusion that you want?
We're not talking about that. You keep trying to change my argument to saying that the virus leaked from a lab; I'm not supporting that. I'm saying the DIRECTOR OF THE CDC was sidelined because he believed there was enough evidence not to rule it out, which is what the narrative was at the time and WHY he was sidelined. We may never know, because the research isn't being done.
Have some self respect.
The "it" they were using is clearly horse dewormer. Not sidelined CDC directors.
Also, just putting this out there. You can see who upvotes and downvotes any given comment.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting, Ivermectin could be used as both, but countries that were using it had been prescribing it to humans for quite a while, so I'm not sure where you're getting your information.
I find that it is often the case that people who say "do your homework/research" (wrt science/news) were the very same students who wouldn't do their homework.