Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

[Daedalus X]

For this topic misinformation is any information that promotes needle hesitancy or anti authoritarian approved information.

Here is an example of misinformation that can't be posted to YouTube, twitter, Facebook or any mainline medium. Is this good public policy?



This is a MUST WATCH.

https://www.therealanthonyfaucimovie.com/viewing/

[historia]

No, private companies always had the right to restrict speech. We didn't "give" that to Social Media companies in exchange for anything.

You are right, it was not "we", it was the Supreme Court in Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC.

No, private companies have always had the right to restrict speech, the Court has just affirmed that in various rulings over the years.

You keep trying to locate the problem elsewhere, but it is the First Amendment itself that is the obstacle to your suggestion.

Medicine is all about the money, not helping people.

When you resort to sweeping assertions like this -- where everyone who disagrees with you is supposedly operating from ulterior motives or is part of some grand conspiracy -- it makes your argument look weak.

This is a problem that needs to be fixed. And it is being fixed with alt media

Seems like you don't have a problem then.

The problem is that it will take a long time to wake people up.

So, let's be clear: You have a cause that you want to champion and the means to do so. But your suggestion here is that the government should force private individuals and business to give material aid to your cause, since that will make it easier for you. And yet you imagine your position is the one opposed to tyranny?

[oldbadger]

Thousands of doctors have been banned from social media. It truly worries me that so many people have not noticed.

OK......... so you want all private media companies to be required to publish anybody's messages regardless, with no banning rights at all. Have I got that right?

Would that satisfy you?

[Daedalus X]

No, private companies have always had the right to restrict speech, the Court has just affirmed that in various rulings over the years.

You keep trying to locate the problem elsewhere, but it is the First Amendment itself that is the obstacle to your suggestion.

That is not true, private companies do not have a right to suppress someone yelling fire in a crowded theater. If Big Pharma knew that for every life they saved from the CCP flu, they had to kill two people with the wax scene, and to keep this information, from the people, they had to coerce social media to suppress any user that was trying to alert the public, this would not be their right under the 1st amendment.

Medicine is all about the money, not helping people.

When you resort to sweeping assertions like this -- where everyone who disagrees with you is supposedly operating from ulterior motives or is part of some grand conspiracy -- it makes your argument look weak.

There may be a few doctors who are not in it for the money, but they are as rare as hens teeth. Ever since Rockefeller got involved with medicine and control of medical schools they have been indoctrinating doctors into agents of profits and "do no harm" became a second thought.
https://dta0yqvfnusiq.cloudfront.net/al ... 74f337.pdf

So, let's be clear: You have a cause that you want to champion and the means to do so. But your suggestion here is that the government should force private individuals and business to give material aid to your cause, since that will make it easier for you. And yet you imagine your position is the one opposed to tyranny?

My position is that we need to expand our first amendment rights to include big monopolies like social media, to prevent these companies from becoming the tyrants that the founding fathers feared. The people need to know that big business is in charge of the country (world as well) and government is no longer going to protect our civil rights because the government has been captured and now takes their marching orders from these large companies.

[Daedalus X]

Thousands of doctors have been banned from social media. It truly worries me that so many people have not noticed.

OK......... so you want all private media companies to be required to publish anybody's messages regardless, with no banning rights at all. Have I got that right?

Would that satisfy you?

If the media company allows political speech they should not be allowed to refuse to publish political speech that they do not like, and more important, they should not be allowed to suppress that speech. (shadow ban)

If it were up to me all cooking content would be banned because I can't stand watching people cook food. But, even those shows do not need to be banned because I am not forced to watch those shows. I am forced to watch commercials (sometimes more than 5 seconds) but that is a part of the business model of the company, and I can live with that.

That would satisfy me.

[Daedalus X]

It happens to be what I want too.

Let me just quote the treasonous words from the J4 insurrection, and let me speak treason as well, "we need another insurrection".

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

[oldbadger]

If the media company allows political speech they should not be allowed to refuse to publish political speech that they do not like, and more important, they should not be allowed to suppress that speech. (shadow ban)

That would satisfy me.

Political?
Do you think that a doctor speaking about their work is political?

And how about a person who feels that seat belts are dangerous, quotes cases where not wearing them has saved lives and advizrs the public to disregard seat belt laws? You think that media companies should have to allow that message to be published?

[Daedalus X]

Do you think that a doctor speaking about their work is political?

It should not be that way, but in my country it is. I suspect that the reason for this is that they are using a fake pandemic to consolidate political power over the people.

And how about a person who feels that seat belts are dangerous, quotes cases where not wearing them has saved lives and advizrs the public to disregard seat belt laws? You think that media companies should have to allow that message to be published?

Absolutely.

Just make sure that they have an insurance company that will cover their medical expenses in the case of an accident and they don't wish to cover it by themselves.

[oldbadger]

It should not be that way, but in my country it is. I suspect that the reason for this is that they are using a fake pandemic to consolidate political power over the people.

Absolutely.

Just make sure that they have an insurance company that will cover their medical expenses in the case of an accident and they don't wish to cover it by themselves.

Interesting! OK, suppose somebody without much money uses media to rant about fat riches living amongst unreasonable poverty and incites the hungry to break into rich homes for funds? Would that be ok?

[Daedalus X]

Interesting! OK, suppose somebody without much money uses media to rant about fat riches living amongst unreasonable poverty and incites the hungry to break into rich homes for funds? Would that be ok?

People know the difference between right and wrong, we don't need to treat them like children, when they are adults. "The devil made me do it", is no excuse for illegal acts. And neither is "I was just obeying orders". (remember Nuremberg)

People are responsible period, we don't live in a nanny state.

[oldbadger]

Interesting! OK, suppose somebody without much money uses media to rant about fat riches living amongst unreasonable poverty and incites the hungry to break into rich homes for funds? Would that be ok?

People know the difference between right and wrong, we don't need to treat them like children, when they are adults. "The devil made me do it", is no excuse for illegal acts. And neither is "I was just obeying orders". (remember Nuremberg)

People are responsible period, we don't live in a nanny state.

So media owners are responsible for moderating the content of publications on their websites...... is this true? So any content which encourages, provokes or incite people to break laws should be stopped, really?

Don't forget....you didn't mind a publication advising people to disregard seatbelt laws.