Crazy (and not-so-crazy) shit about Covid-19

[Steve James]

Yep, if someone in a white coat says drinking bleach cures covid, it's wrong not to post or publish it. The government should make sure it can happen.

And that stuff about succubi, demon seeds, and alien dna research.... Well, since the POTUS retweeted her medical advice, we know whose advice to follow.

I sure hope that hydro works. Yeah, cured hundreds of patients, sometimes through exorcism. Riiight.

[Steve James]

The government needs to decide what free speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk. That's the exact opposite rationale for the fourth amendment. But, the assumption is that the government should not stop the people from hearing the truth. It can make laws against publishing lies. But, try yelling bomb on a plane, and then claim the right to free speech.

[windwalker]

Am I correct in assuming that many here are in favor of allowing private entities to determine what is acceptable speech or information on the Internet or not?

In my case, yes, you are absolutely correct in assuming this.

The gov. represents the interest of the public. privet entities do not
the European countries are even more restrictive acting on protecting the rights of
the people they represent




Oh yes, as regards "private entities" making the decision... YouTube provides a service, makes money from this service, issues guidelines about what is acceptable for posting in YouTube and what isn't. So yes, they are entitled to decide if they don't want particular videos on their site. (To give another example, they are entitled to and would remove a video of a kidnapped person actually being tortured to death in a serial killer's cellar, even if whoever posts the video declares it should here be viewed as an artistic or political statement).
Or do you think that, instead, federal government should have the responsibility, right and ability to remove videos from YouTube, instead of YouTube doing this itself?

It's ok you seem to miss the point or maybe are too indoctrinated to see it.
It's called free speech. all speech with very few exceptions regulated by the laws of
the society enacted through the government

There are many videos that some might find offensive others not.
The point is that those platforms can not be held libel for what they "allow" to be posted.

Only seem to enforce their own guidelines according to what they support despite claiming
and having rule sets that claim otherwise.

They in fact are acting as content "publishers" not content platforms
and should be subjected to the same rule sets as publishers for the same reasons

The gov acting in the interest of people "all the people" has acted.

On Monday, the Department of Commerce, as directed by President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship, filed a petition to clarify the scope of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. The petition requests that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) clarify that Section 230 does not permit social media companies that alter or editorialize users’ speech to escape civil liability.

What this means is that the doctors and others for example can now sue the content platforms for violating their right
of free speech, when such speech has not violated any law...

[windwalker]

@ giles,

looks like you have not read the doctors white papers outlining their viewpoint based on their findings.
Not being able to do so, because its been censored your unable to make an informed viewpoint or
question their viewpoints supported by the white paper supporting theirs.

It will be interesting to see how the EO plays out...something that had to be done
normally done by laws passed by or changed through congress which is essentially non functional at this time.
After Nov, hopefully depending on the results this will change.

[Giles]

@ Windwalker

Rightie-ho. I gave you a straight and clear answer about my own view on the limits of free speech. I said: Yes, under certain circumstances I am indeed in favor of allowing private entities to determine what is acceptable speech or information on the Internet or not. (If the speech or 'information' is being published on the websites owned and run by said entities, e.g. YT or Twitter).

I then quote a fairly extreme but, I think, legitimate public health-related example of when I believe that YT should indeed take down a video. Namely my fictional "Drink bleach to cure Covid" video. Would you now please give me a straight and clear answer as to whether you think that YouTube should, or must, allow this imagined video to remain on YT (with the resulting health consequences I describe in my story), or whether YT would do better to take it down. Or whether you are undecided on this issue.

Seeing as how the discussion seems to be revolving around this issue, I would very much welcome your straight answer.

[Giles]

@ giles,

looks like you have not read the doctors white papers outlining their viewpoint based on their findings.
Not being able to do so, because its been censored your unable to make an informed viewpoint or
question their viewpoints supported by the white paper supporting theirs.

Once again, at least some of these doctors are demonstrably either 1) illogical and disingenuous in much of their argumentation, or 2) plain nuts, irrespective of whether they hold a medical licence or not. Hence I will give more credence to peer reviews and/or duplicating study results with regard to said white paper. If peer reviews then say something along the lines of "Sound work, interesting, useful, makes us reconsider the status of HCQ, they are on to something good etc." then I will formally and unreservedly apologize to you on this forum for my sceptical and deprecatory attitude towards this group of doctors.

[windwalker]

@ giles,

looks like you have not read the doctors white papers outlining their viewpoint based on their findings.
Not being able to do so, because its been censored your unable to make an informed viewpoint or
question their viewpoints supported by the white paper supporting theirs.

Once again, at least some of these doctors are demonstrably either 1) illogical and disingenuous in much of their argumentation, or 2) plain nuts, irrespective of whether they hold a medical licence or not. Hence I will give more credence to peer reviews and/or duplicating study results with regard to said white paper. If peer reviews then say something along the lines of "Sound work, interesting, useful, makes us reconsider the status of HCQ, they are on to something good etc." then I will formally and unreservedly apologize to you on this forum for my sceptical and deprecatory attitude towards this group of doctors.

Again had you read their white paper you would understand that there are ongoing studies they say will be published at a later date for peer review. They and those they’ve treated all agree with the outcome of the treatments.


Peer reviews

Mmm, What do peer reviews by medical doctors in the scientific community say about acupuncture?
Have you read them, do you agree with them, are there any that support it?

Namely my fictional "Drink bleach to cure Covid" video. Would you now please give me a straight and clear answer as to whether you think that YouTube should, or must, allow this imagined video to remain on YT (with the resulting health consequences I describe in my story), or whether YT would do better to take it down. Or whether you are undecided on this issue.

Yes, if YouTube is merely a content platform and the act is not illegal it should be allowed to be published.
If they are acting as a publisher censoring things they do not agree with it will not be published regardless of what it may suggest.

Normally with questionable activities there is a disclaimer at the front of a video by those who publish it
Allowing people to decide if it’s something they want to do or not.

The first step was to ensure they were held under the same laws as publishers.
The next step will be to break up the monopolies Allowing others to have access to free speech in the modern town square
Through competing platforms.

Coming soon

In this aspect, china has probably more free speech access than those in the west.
They understand that private entities do not act in the interest of the government or the people.
Reading your posting it would seem that you would agree with this.

The US is kind of duplicitous, claiming free-speech when clearly as, has been shown it’s not.

Try looking up who controls or owns the media outlets.
The number is quite small, I believe it’s under 10.

[Steve James]

I think it'd be better to ask if it'd be ok for Twitter or Youtube to take down an ISIS recruitment videos calling for the beheadings of Americans. How about the right to advocate for Sharia law?

Connection? The government shouldn't have the right to make someone wear a mask, but it should have the right to prohibit wearing a veil. Right? Seems like another convenient definition of "freedom." Rather, it's a typical right wing misconstruction passed along as fact. Freedom of the press or media MEANS that the GOVERNMENT can't interfere. It is exactly the OPPOSITE of government control. It means that THE MEDIA HAS THE RIGHT to determine what to publish. It doesn't imply any responsibility to publish anything, and specifically what it considers lies. Oh well, it's no wonder that the present administration wants to make telling the truth a crime and punish those who would uncover lies.

Imo, it's a problem that the question of whether a media outlet should publish anything just because of free speech is dangerous.
"Should I be allowed to make a video claiming that drinking bleach will cure the coronavirus?"
"Sure. It's a free country."
"Will drinking bleach kill a person?"
"Well, Yeah. It's poison."
"If I tell the person and he drinks it, am I responsible if he dies?"
"Fuck no. It's a free country; He drank it of his own free will?"
"Cool. I'm going to publish it in the Times."
"Okay."
"Hey. The f-in Times wouldn't publish my article."
"Surprise."

[windwalker]

It means that THE MEDIA HAS THE RIGHT to determine what to publish. It doesn't imply any responsibility to publish anything, and specifically what it considers lies. Oh well, it's no wonder that the present administration wants to make telling the truth a crime and punish those who would uncover lies.

You should educate yourself, concerning the law as it applies to content platforms versus publishers.
The media in this case “content platforms” have claimed that they are merely platforms that others can publish their viewpoints on. Allowing them to be free of liability.

Publishers, because they are active in the content they publish are not free from this liability.

[Steve James]

Your free speech argument doesn't apply. The government can't tell anyone what to publish. Or, should I say, it's unConstitutional for it do that or make laws about religion, etc. What someone has is their "property" whether physical or intellectual. What's on Youtube belongs to Youtube, and Youtube can take it down.

You're the last person on this board to suggest anyone get educated, but that's irrelevant. The point is that you're okay with telling people to drink bleach. You claim to have been a medic, etc. I thought the primary responsibility of a health care professional was to "do no harm." I'm no pro, but I'd tell anyone not to drink bleach. I'd tell everyone not to listen to any idiot in a white coat or on the internet who said it was a good idea. I'd blame those idiots for recommending it, promoting it, or fighting to its release. And, then I'd say, "Ok, since it works, show me."

[windwalker]

You're the last person on this board to suggest anyone get educated, but that's irrelevant.

you claim to have a PhD .


If you have a PhD as claimed, it would seem that you would understand the limits of your knowledge and seek to educate yourself about aspects of law for which you clearly don’t understand or know.



I was a medic in the army.
Not a claim a fact.
Having been a medic I understood the limits of my own knowledge
and skill sets.

[windwalker]

The point is that you're okay with telling people to drink bleach.

.
You might consider getting a job as a psychic.

I’m ok with allowing others to have the ability to say whatever they want within the limits of the law.
The law regarding what are content platforms has been, or is being changed to reflect their activity as content publishers.

[windwalker]

@ Giles,

reviewed by their medical authorities

The Dutch government on Wednesday advised the public not to wear masks to slow the spread of coronavirus, cautioning their effectiveness remains unproven.

The Minister for Medical Care Tamara van Ark made the decision after a review by the country’s National Institute for Health (RIVM).

Because from a medical perspective there is no proven effectiveness of masks, the Cabinet has decided that there will be no national obligation for wearing non-medical masks” Van Ark said.

RIVM chief Jaap van Dissel cited studies that show masks help slow the spread of disease but remained unconvinced they will do anything to counter coronavirus outbreak in the Netherlands.

Is it correct

[Steve James]

Yep, I've got a Phd, That's why I try to make logical arguments. But, afa the Fourth Amendment, I learned about that in John Peter Zenger elementary school.

Nobody has to be psychic to read what you write. You support the article/video for whatever reason, but you support it. Besides, won't they publish/show the video on FOX anyway? Then, there's always Tor. Though, I wouldn't believe anyone who believes in alien dna or that wearing masks is useless. You don't need a Phd to have common sense.

Hey, you can believe her if you want.

[windwalker]

Nobody has to be psychic to read what you write. You support the article/video for whatever reason, but you support it.

Reading comprehension must not be a strong point.

I support their right to post it, presented it here as an interesting alternative to some of the viewpoints presented against it.
This conversation arose because their viewpoints have been censored, by the media platforms they posted their viewpoints as medical doctors on.


Some here have attempted to discredit them and their viewpoints without having access to their viewpoints because they’ve now been censored.

Because I am not a medical doctor I found it interesting reading their viewpoints that seem to be dismissed by other doctors in the field. Having a read their white paper, I can agree with the facts as presented without being able to support what was stated because I’m not a doctor.

Are you ?