Giles wrote:windwalker wrote: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?
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.
windwalker wrote:@ 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.
Giles wrote:windwalker wrote:@ 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.
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.
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'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.
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.
Nobody has to be psychic to read what you write. You support the article/video for whatever reason, but you support it.
Return to Been There Done That
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 88 guests