Real censorship

Teflon Don said:
www.mediaite.com

Google Admits to Congress The Biden Admin 'Pressed' YouTube to Censor COVID 'Misinformation'

Google admitted President Joe Biden's administration "pressed" the tech giant and YouTube to censor content the administration felt was COVID-19 "misinformation" or denied election results
www.mediaite.com www.mediaite.com

Will JPP leftists criticize creepy Joe Biden?

Doubt it
Click to expand...
Yep, they were trying to save lives when idiots like you were trying to push horse dewormer and zinc as a treatment for COVID.
 
domer76 said:
Yep, they were trying to save lives when idiots like you were trying to push horse dewormer and zinc as a treatment for COVID.
Click to expand...
For the sake of discussion, let me ask this. The question isn't whether some people had bad ideas about COVID treatments, it's about whether the government should be pressuring private companies to censor speech. If we accept the framing that it's 'safety, not censorship' then really anyone in power can claim censorship is safety.

For example if RFK Jr and Trump want to pressure private companies to prevent the advertising or showing anything related to Tylenol under the guise of safety, would we be alright with that?
 
Teflon Don said:
www.mediaite.com

Google Admits to Congress The Biden Admin 'Pressed' YouTube to Censor COVID 'Misinformation'

Google admitted President Joe Biden's administration "pressed" the tech giant and YouTube to censor content the administration felt was COVID-19 "misinformation" or denied election results
www.mediaite.com www.mediaite.com

Will JPP leftists criticize creepy Joe Biden?

Doubt it
Click to expand...
The only one who had actually had their free speech rights taken from them was charlie kirk. The rest is bullshit
 
domer76 said:
Yep, they were trying to save lives when idiots like you were trying to push horse dewormer and zinc as a treatment for COVID.
Click to expand...
Why do you care that people want to try ivermectin which was approved for use in humans in the 80s and is on the WHOs list of my important drugs ever developed? Calling it "horse dewormer" is a gross lie and its none of your fucking business what people put into their bodies. Oh thats right you twats want to run everyones lives not just your own which you dont do a very good job of so fuck off asshole
 
cawacko said:
For the sake of discussion, let me ask this. The question isn't whether some people had bad ideas about COVID treatments, it's about whether the government should be pressuring private companies to censor speech. If we accept the framing that it's 'safety, not censorship' then really anyone in power can claim censorship is safety.

For example if RFK Jr and Trump want to pressure private companies to prevent the advertising or showing anything related to Tylenol under the guise of safety, would we be alright with that?
Click to expand...
Why are you trying to reason with a leftist? The person you're talking to has to have a connected brain stem. Well the term leftist should give you a clue as to the likelihood their brain stem is connected
 
cawacko said:
For the sake of discussion, let me ask this. The question isn't whether some people had bad ideas about COVID treatments, it's about whether the government should be pressuring private companies to censor speech. If we accept the framing that it's 'safety, not censorship' then really anyone in power can claim censorship is safety.

For example if RFK Jr and Trump want to pressure private companies to prevent the advertising or showing anything related to Tylenol under the guise of safety, would we be alright with that?
Click to expand...

You would think there's an unwritten line comedians shouldn't cross. Respect can be written into comedy. But, Kimmel still sucks. He's no comedian.
 
cawacko said:
For the sake of discussion, let me ask this. The question isn't whether some people had bad ideas about COVID treatments, it's about whether the government should be pressuring private companies to censor speech. If we accept the framing that it's 'safety, not censorship' then really anyone in power can claim censorship is safety.

For example if RFK Jr and Trump want to pressure private companies to prevent the advertising or showing anything related to Tylenol under the guise of safety, would we be alright with that?
Click to expand...

The difference is a matter of public health when people are dropping like flies from a novel disease. Extraordinarily events require extraordinary measures.

The best scientific and medical evidence at the time said distancing, masking and vaccinating were the best measures to reduce hospitalization and death. The same solid research said ivermectin, zinc, or other quack cures did not work and that the viral spread of this misinformation was leading to unnecessary deaths. Thousands of them. As well as overwhelming the hospitals.

The preponderance of evidence is that there is no link between Tylenol and autism. Nor is there an imminent public health emergency where people are dropping dead left and right. However, the administration is free to offer whatever bogus claim they wish. They do every day, anyway. But to prevent advertising of a tried and true product on questionable research is not alright. I’m sure Tylenol’s lawyers are working overtime right now, anyway.
 
Yakuda said:
Why do you care that people want to try ivermectin which was approved for use in humans in the 80s and is on the WHOs list of my important drugs ever developed? Calling it "horse dewormer" is a gross lie and its none of your fucking business what people put into their bodies. Oh thats right you twats want to run everyones lives not just your own which you dont do a very good job of so fuck off asshole
Click to expand...
We’re talking about valid COVID treatments, you fucking moron. Not an anti-parasitic. Public health and the prevention of the spread of infectious disease is the proper role of government.
 
domer76 said:
We’re talking about valid COVID treatments, you fucking moron. Not an anti-parasitic. Public health and the prevention of the spread of infectious disease is the proper role of government.
Click to expand...
I dont give a shit what you're talking about. I agree but that "proper role of government" doesnt include preventing people from trying an alternative. What none of you dimwits has yet explained is why you give a shit if a doctor and patient wanted to try ivermectin. Do THAT then you might be worth listening to
 
domer76 said:
The difference is a matter of public health when people are dropping like flies from a novel disease. Extraordinarily events require extraordinary measures.

The best scientific and medical evidence at the time said distancing, masking and vaccinating were the best measures to reduce hospitalization and death. The same solid research said ivermectin, zinc, or other quack cures did not work and that the viral spread of this misinformation was leading to unnecessary deaths. Thousands of them. As well as overwhelming the hospitals.

The preponderance of evidence is that there is no link between Tylenol and autism. Nor is there an imminent public health emergency where people are dropping dead left and right. However, the administration is free to offer whatever bogus claim they wish. They do every day, anyway. But to prevent advertising of a tried and true product on questionable research is not alright. I’m sure Tylenol’s lawyers are working overtime right now, anyway.
Click to expand...
I hear you on COVID being unique, and I don’t downplay how serious it was. My concern is more about precedent. Once we accept that government can pressure companies when it claims safety is at stake, who decides when an emergency is extraordinary enough? That seems like a slippery slope that could easily be abused down the road.

Edit: Just to add, science isn’t fixed. What everyone agrees on today might change tomorrow, which is another reason I get uneasy with the idea of government censorship.
 
Yakuda said:
I dont give a shit what you're talking about. I agree but that "proper role of government" doesnt include preventing people from trying an alternative. What none of you dimwits has yet explained is why you give a shit if a doctor and patient wanted to try ivermectin. Do THAT then you might be worth listening to
Click to expand...
Yep, they sure as shit can try an alternative. The role of government, as stated in the Constitution, is to protect the welfare of the people. Promoting a bogus treatment for a disease that is killing millions is the antithesis of that.

Too bad morons like you can’t recognize that.
 
cawacko said:
For the sake of discussion, let me ask this. The question isn't whether some people had bad ideas about COVID treatments, it's about whether the government should be pressuring private companies to censor speech. If we accept the framing that it's 'safety, not censorship' then really anyone in power can claim censorship is safety.

For example if RFK Jr and Trump want to pressure private companies to prevent the advertising or showing anything related to Tylenol under the guise of safety, would we be alright with that?
Click to expand...
I think they have a right to ask social media companies to do something for the public good, but the absolutely should not threaten Government action, in any way, to coerce them to take action.

Palm Beach County has an old administrative order, from a time when the Courthouse had no air conditioning, that is still in affect prohibiting Judges from requiring Attorneys to wear a necktie. A judge can still request an attorney wear a necktie, but cannot threaten anything or do anything against an attorney who does not wear one. This was clarified a few years ago when a criminal defense attorney refused to wear a tie and it was ruled the Judge could not insist or threaten or actually take any action against him.
 
cawacko said:
I hear you on COVID being unique, and I don’t downplay how serious it was. My concern is more about precedent. Once we accept that government can pressure companies when it claims safety is at stake, who decides when an emergency is extraordinary enough? That seems like a slippery slope that could easily be abused down the road.

Edit: Just to add, science isn’t fixed. What everyone agrees on today might change tomorrow, which is another reason I get uneasy with the idea of government censorship.
Click to expand...
It’s pretty clear that COVID was a public health emergency. And yes, abuse can occur. We see that in the Trump administration every day.

Yep, science isn’t fixed. That’s the beauty of it, isn’t it? And we try to use the best science available to us at the time. On COVID, the science still hasn’t changed since the beginning. We still know that distancing, proper masking and vaccination, not ivermectin, are all valid tools to prevent death or hospitalization.
 
domer76 said:
Yep, they sure as shit can try an alternative. The role of government, as stated in the Constitution, is to protect the welfare of the people. Promoting a bogus treatment for a disease that is killing millions is the antithesis of that.

Too bad morons like you can’t recognize that.
Click to expand...
The govt wasnt promoting it asshole they were preventing people from trying it. Thats not their role but you obviously need a mommy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top