When you tell social media outlets to keep a look out for (fill in the blank) or delete posts that claim (fill in the blank), that is exactly what you are doing.
Federal Judge Limits Biden Officials’ Contacts With Social Media Sites
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
CDC never EVER stated this.
Vaccines were ALWAYS listed as "~90%" effective. What CDC told you is they will REDUCE the spread.
WHICH THEY DID
Government never did this
Social media sites recognized disinformation, and deleted them on their own.
To be clear, that's not what is going on. I have absolutely zero problem with politicians and agencies preaching to the hills why they are right on any matter, including passionately and with name-calling. But that is a different thing from the G suppressing - directly or indirectly - competing viewpoints.
Believe me, I have great sympathy that persuading crazy people is difficult-to-impossible. (That's why there are a limited number of posters, on both sides of the aisle, here and elsewhere, that I simply don't engage with because it's a waste of my time, and on the theory that sometimes ignoring a crazy person is the best way to silence them.) But it doesn't justify the G suppressing their crazy views except in extraordinarily rare circumstances. Whether it's amending the constitution, or dealing with crazy people's lunatic rants, or (my own pet peeve) trying to urge people toward open-minded moderation, "but it's hard" is, in my view, not really a valid excuse to justify failing to try.
Last edited:
When did the government limit speech in this case? Is asking for a warning limiting speech?
JP,
While there are absolutely some dubious qualities to this particular judge, the record as described in the opinion at least contains sufficient information/allegations at a PI stage to support the thesis that the G was leaning on the socials pretty hard. To be clear, some of the things he cited didn't move me, but others did. One can quibble about how hard they were leaning, but that sort of leaning is in fact actionable.
Either way, there is a certain reality to these sorts of communications at this level, without regard to who's in office -- all of the parties to the conversation understand perfectly well what is intended, without the need of getting terribly explicit about threats in writing and emails.
The government has NOT done this.
Misleading posts on Covid and "ivermectin" and "aquarium cleaner" were widespread. Do you think the government should sit back and let "aquarium cleaner" be assumed as a "cure" and "safe"?
Or does the government have a responsibility to its citizens to point out dangerous disinformation, and notify web-hosts that the information posted is both wrong and possibly deadly?
Is it "improper" for a government agency to ask that dangerous information be clarified, or removed?
What about someone posting "bomb-making" information - is that something the government now cannot stop from being put online (w/o getting a judge's approval)?
JP, takedown-type notices and poster-blocks are absolutely a form of suppression that heightens 1A sensitivities.
If the G wanted to go after iver and bleach here, they had another perfectly legal and valid pathway for doing so -- the promotion of a substance for a clinical use, where such use has not been validated via clinical studies, is a criminal violation of the FDC Act. Beyond that, they shouted to the hills those issues, and frankly, successfully.
Obviously, imminent threats to life and and national security matters are different things entirely
Those are decisions that host sites take
SOMETIMES in response to government requests. But they are primarily site-host decisions.
Not true. The FDA has issued enforcement letters against nonmanufacturer entities that promoted items.
should i assume that's a 'no'? Because when I read it there was a fairly extensive (like, maybe 40 pages?) recitation, on an agency by agency basis, of very specific things the judge cited in support of his conclusion. As I said, some moved me more, some moved me less.
Absolutely true.
Duct Tape is listed as a treatment for plantar warts (even on medical sites)
The makers of Duct Tape have never gotten any approval for that use. Ever.
And no one is being prosecuted over it.
Those are SELLERS of the items, bro. Who included unsubstantiated claims on the products.
Yes it is. No speech should be censored and no speech should be discredited by the government. In a free society the people get to decide what to say, hear and believe and there should be no government interference, period.
Let me ask this, if it was Trump telling social media what to allow, delete or post a warning to it's readers about, would you feel the same? For some reason I doubt it.
This is fully incorrect.
Disinformation and lies should be corrected.
You saw this on display with false claims of "voter fraud" and "stolen elections" that have put 500+ people in jail for "falling for" those lies.
And they most assuredly were lies, because multiple attorneys now are (or are being) disbarred over them, and given >70 opportunities to bring legitimate claims into courts, NONE of the liars produced any evidence.
It is wholly improper for any government or entity to sit back and allow misinformation and lies to go unchallenged. And that is not "censoring" free speech. it is counteracting false propaganda, and it a critical function for many government agencies - including intel agencies combatting foreign propaganda.
Then why would you want to support Ron DeSantis…who clearly doesn’t agree with what you typed here? He attacks anyone who freely speaks opposite of what he wants. He wants to eliminate the way I think and talk. I agree with this post. I just can’t understand why you’d vote for someone who thinks the total opposite. Ron has proven this for a couple of years now.
Wonderful concept if there was a single entity out there that could be counted upon to always be correct and unbiased,.. There is no such entity.
Last edited:
That's the gist of things...I don't think most folks bitching about this ruling would be eager to have a DeSantis administration leaning on social media companies on what is or isn't disinformation.
Used to be that the media entities could be relied on for truth telling. More than anything else, there are too many entities that clearly k to be media but have questionable ethics and frequently outright lie.
We need a mechanism to call out when that happens. I don’t have a problem with any public or private organization reaching out to Twitter for instance to argue that some tweet should be flagged as misleading, false etc. outright demanding content be taken down is a different thing.
The same things they complain about with DeSantis in terms of govt overreach(rightfully so) they applaud in this instance because “Go Team Blue!”
That's exactly the point and the recent pandemic provided a very dangerous backdrop for what could happen when you have a single entity censoring public information that it believes to be incorrect in favor of disseminating it's own incorrect information that it believes to be correct,.. This is the type of stuff that drives the lemming herd to race to the cliff edge and jump.
Last edited:
Sorry should have said the head of CDC. Im
Sure you will be right back to admit you were wrong.
It's official: Vaccinated people don't spread COVID-19 | Fortune
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky this week declared that "vaccinated people do not carry the virus."
fortune.com
You’re making a false premise here though. If Trump had told social media to edit information, I would not support that. I wouldn’t support Biden doing that. However, that doesn’t seem to be what’s happened here. They asked for an advisory. That’s not coercion.
This is what the "Community Notes" function works for
And there should be no restriction that a government entity, in its official function, should not be able to contribute a Community Note or point of context. And government officials contributing them should be both professionally, and personally, accountable for knowingly false information.
Your link is FALSE. The actual quote was:
CDC director says data 'suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus' CDC director Rochelle Walensky said data suggests fully vaccinated people don't carry COVID-19. On Monday, the CDC released a study finding mRNA vaccines 90% effective at preventing infection.
Correctly citing data TRENDS is not the same as claiming the vaccine "works 100%"
CDC also correctly stated that (AT THE TIME) the vaccine was 90% effective at preventing infection, meaning it MAY NOT BE 100% effective at preventing transmission.
You seem to have a very difficult time understanding this.
EDIT: And LITERALLY 1 day after Walensky's "overgeneralization" was made, CDC corrected it:
"Dr. Walensky spoke broadly during this interview," an agency spokesman told The New York Times on Thursday. "It's possible that some people who are fully vaccinated could get COVID-19. The evidence isn't clear whether they can spread the virus to others. We are continuing to evaluate the evidence."
As far as I know, each administration has requested social media companies take stuff down, add labels, etc
As far as you know?
The only administration that was working side by side with Twitter was Bidens as pointed out in the Twitter files.
You have lost your mind due to politics. You actually believe in the credibility of the Twitter Files. You are such a team player.
I can’t believe you have much credibility in that. You seriously think Trump, didn’t lean on twitter when they corrected or flagged his frequent meltdowns,?
Who gets to decide what are lies or disinformation? The party that will be hurt if the facts are exposed and accurate? Or a big business that doesn't want you to know their product is fake or extremely inadequate?
The data SUGGESTED what she said.
What she said was also an "overgeneralization", which the OFFICIAL CDC SITE corrected within 24 hours.
Facts get to
So, when you bring false allegations of voter fraud w/o any evidence, you get your "tweets" corrected.
When you HAVE evidence, as determined by admissibility in a court, you can openly state it.
Oh, but you forgot about the "disinformation" that covid was not the result of a lab leak or that Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation. I bet those "corrections" must have simply slipped your mind.
