Real censorship

domer76 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You said science isn’t fixed and we work with what we know at the time, which I agree with. But then you said COVID science hasn’t changed since the beginning. Guidance on things like masking, schools, and even vaccines definitely evolved. Isn’t that exactly why we should be cautious about censorship?
 
Jarod said:
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.
Click to expand...
That’s a good way to put it, request versus coercion. The problem is those lines can get blurry, and that’s exactly what the OP article points to. Google told Congress the Biden administration pressed YouTube to take down content that didn’t violate its own rules. That goes beyond a simple request and gets into coercion territory.
 
Yakuda said:
The govt wasnt promoting it asshole they were preventing people from trying it. Thats not their role but you obviously need a mommy
Click to expand...
Of course they weren’t promoting an antiparasitic to treat a virus. The frauds and charlatans were doing that. The government was trying to prevent that. The proper role of government is to protect its citizens.
 
cawacko said:
You said science isn’t fixed and we work with what we know at the time, which I agree with. But then you said COVID science hasn’t changed since the beginning. Guidance on things like masking, schools, and even vaccines definitely evolved. Isn’t that exactly why we should be cautious about censorship?
Click to expand...
Don’t confuse the SCIENCE with public health POLICY. Two different animals.
 
domer76 said:
We don’t know much about the guy, do we, shitstain? We DO know that he didn’t infringe on Kirk’s right to free speech, as you tried to claim.
Click to expand...
Sure he did. he shot him in the neck. youre still spewing your stupid shit but charlie was silenced.
 
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...
Not an easy answer. As we all know, freedom of speech isn’t absolute, extreme porn or terror threats aren’t considered acceptable, and it is the government who steps in, I think most would say justifiably

Concerning here, if the Government did what it said they did I’d say the motivation was concern for public health, least as it was understood at the time. Can’t say the same today, the end here is to end criticism, and it is motivated by political and personal goals
 
domer76 said:
Of course they weren’t promoting an antiparasitic to treat a virus. The frauds and charlatans were doing that. The government was trying to prevent that. The proper role of government is to protect its citizens.
Click to expand...
They have no right to prevent that. You still need a mommy too bad for you
 
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...
Was Biden’s goal to use the Government squash critics, control political criticism, or was it motivated by concern for public health? Huge difference
 
cawacko said:
That’s a good way to put it, request versus coercion. The problem is those lines can get blurry, and that’s exactly what the OP article points to. Google told Congress the Biden administration pressed YouTube to take down content that didn’t violate its own rules. That goes beyond a simple request and gets into coercion territory.
Click to expand...
What did the Government do that you consider coercion of YouTube?
 
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...
He was trying to keep right-wing Covid lies from killing some of his people.
Trump's FCC and his people are doing real informational censorship. That is the topic of the thread.
You may not be able to discern the difference from what other presidents have done and the huge difference in what Trump is doing. But it is scary big difference .
 
domer76 said:
Don’t confuse the SCIENCE with public health POLICY. Two different animals.
Click to expand...
I get the distinction you’re making, but in real time science and policy overlapped. What counted as ‘misinformation’ often changed over time. That’s why I think we should be cautious about censorship. If what we know changes, what gets banned one day might look reasonable the next.
 
archives said:
Not an easy answer. As we all know, freedom of speech isn’t absolute, extreme porn or terror threats aren’t considered acceptable, and it is the government who steps in, I think most would say justifiably

Concerning here, if the Government did what it said they did I’d say the motivation was concern for public health, least as it was understood at the time. Can’t say the same today, the end here is to end criticism, and it is motivated by political and personal goals
Click to expand...
Fair point. Speech is not absolute and COVID was a unique challenge. My concern is that once the government builds the habit of pressuring companies in the name of safety, it becomes too easy for future leaders to use the same tools for political goals. That is why I think the precedent matters more than the moment.
 
Jarod said:
What did the Government do that you consider coercion of YouTube?
Click to expand...
It’s in the OP. Google told Congress the administration pressed YouTube to remove content that didn’t violate its own rules. That is what started this whole thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top