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/

[oldbadger]

The part where you think a court won't/shouldn't take the side of a member of a protected group who accuses a facility that banned them of illegal racial discrimination when the facility presents either no other reason, or a weak one. If that was enough, no racial discrimination case would ever succeed.

I think? Now back you go and copy/paste where I wrote any such thing.

I'm not arguing they won't or can't ban the old lady for dumping her dirty diaper in the store. I am arguing that if the old lady is a member of a protected group, not only does something like that have to happen, but the store has to establish that it probably did.

The store simply asks such an offender to sign a banning notice, and if the offender refuses then the store cam call the police itself.
You don't have much of a clue about all this.......what do you do for work? It can't be anything to do with retail premises, I think.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying then.

I don't think that you know what your talking about.
Where I live we have a very strong Equality Act which prohibits, harassment, victimisation, exclusion etc to do with Gays, Colour, Race, Disability, Marital status, Nationality, Age, Sexual Orientation, religion, Gender, and more, but if anybody in any of those groups commits a criminal offence then they can be arrested, removed, banned etc.

But if you twist that in to I don't support our Equality Act then you are being dishonest.

[Purple Knight]

The part where you think a court won't/shouldn't take the side of a member of a protected group who accuses a facility that banned them of illegal racial discrimination when the facility presents either no other reason, or a weak one. If that was enough, no racial discrimination case would ever succeed.

I think? Now back you go and copy/paste where I wrote any such thing.

What happened was that I said you effectively need a good reason to ban from a store, not no reason or a weak reason, because if someone is a member of a protected group, no reason or a weak reason will be rightly assumed to actually be an illegal reason, and you told me I didn't know what I was talking about. In many of your responses you're not addressing what I say, just telling me I don't have a clue.

This started because you accused someone else of not knowing the difference between banning a person who happens to be handicapped (presumably for some other reason) and banning someone for being handicapped. I pointed out that if the court doesn't see the difference, that's what matters, and if the handicapped person didn't do anything, not only won't they see a difference, but they shouldn't, because if they don't, they can ban someone for being handicapped by simply saying it was for some other reason. If they could ban a person who happens to be handicapped, for no reason or a weak one, that then gives them the right to ban a person for being handicapped if they choose to do so, by making up a weak reason or saying it was no reason at all. And then anti-discrimination law doesn't protect anyone.

I'm not arguing they won't or can't ban the old lady for dumping her dirty diaper in the store. I am arguing that if the old lady is a member of a protected group, not only does something like that have to happen, but the store has to establish that it probably did.

The store simply asks such an offender to sign a banning notice, and if the offender refuses then the store cam call the police itself.
You don't have much of a clue about all this.......what do you do for work? It can't be anything to do with retail premises, I think.

This response doesn't address what I said. What I said has always been about what will almost certainly happen in court, later (not at the store, immediately, and only if the person knows their rights) if a store bans a member of a protected group for no reason or a weak reason.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying then.

I don't think that you know what your talking about.
Where I live we have a very strong Equality Act which prohibits, harassment, victimisation, exclusion etc to do with Gays, Colour, Race, Disability, Marital status, Nationality, Age, Sexual Orientation, religion, Gender, and more, but if anybody in any of those groups commits a criminal offence then they can be arrested, removed, banned etc.

But if you twist that in to I don't support our Equality Act then you are being dishonest.

You don't seem to think it works. For the third time I'm saying that if they have a good reason to ban someone, they can. On that point I agree with you. But if someone is a member of a protected group, the store will not get away with no reason or a weak reason. Even if it's on the books that they can ban for any reason, they won't get away with it, because no reason or a weak reason will be assumed to actually be an illegal reason.

https://www.mydoorsign.com/blog/right-t ... to-anyone/
So who can businesses refuse service to?
These signs also don’t allow business owners to refuse service based on arbitrary reasons outside of the protected classes (though pointing out signs to cries of “No fair!” might avoid any further action on the part of spurned patrons). Instead, reasons must be legitimate enough to hold up in court.

[oldbadger]

What happened was that I said you effectively need a good reason to ban from a store, not no reason or a weak reason, because if someone is a member of a protected group, no reason or a weak reason will be rightly assumed to actually be an illegal reason, and you told me I didn't know what I was talking about. In many of your responses you're not addressing what I say, just telling me I don't have a clue.

This started because you accused someone else of not knowing the difference between banning a person who happens to be handicapped (presumably for some other reason) and banning someone for being handicapped. I pointed out that if the court doesn't see the difference, that's what matters, and if the handicapped person didn't do anything, not only won't they see a difference, but they shouldn't, because if they don't, they can ban someone for being handicapped by simply saying it was for some other reason. If they could ban a person who happens to be handicapped, for no reason or a weak one, that then gives them the right to ban a person for being handicapped if they choose to do so, by making up a weak reason or saying it was no reason at all. And then anti-discrimination law doesn't protect anyone.

This response doesn't address what I said. What I said has always been about what will almost certainly happen in court, later (not at the store, immediately, and only if the person knows their rights) if a store bans a member of a protected group for no reason or a weak reason.

You don't seem to think it works. For the third time I'm saying that if they have a good reason to ban someone, they can. On that point I agree with you. But if someone is a member of a protected group, the store will not get away with no reason or a weak reason. Even if it's on the books that they can ban for any reason, they won't get away with it, because no reason or a weak reason will be assumed to actually be an illegal reason.

https://www.mydoorsign.com/blog/right-t ... to-anyone/
So who can businesses refuse service to?
These signs also don’t allow business owners to refuse service based on arbitrary reasons outside of the protected classes (though pointing out signs to cries of “No fair!” might avoid any further action on the part of spurned patrons). Instead, reasons must be legitimate enough to hold up in court.

All that writing to tell what is obvious. Properties that are open to the Public can ban criminal or very unreasonable behaviour.

And Media websites that are open to the Public can ban criminal or very unreasonable publications.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to Daedalus X in post #3]

What a horrible example.

When people usually talk of banning speech, it involves the injury or death of people. Not hurt feelings.

Start with yelling "fire!" In a theater. Doing so falsely could endanger lives.
Now, can I tell your 5 year old son to drink battery acid to cure his cold?
Can I tell people not to take their meds because the government uses it to track you?
Can I lie about magical cures for Covid? Should I be able to?

Put this idea of public safety first.

Then compare the Right Wings attempt at censorship:
No books on gay parents, no drag shows, don't say gay, ban certain songs because of lyrics, ban books because of sex, ban books because of Evolution, cancel the Left from all their media outlets, etc.

They have nothing to do with public safety, but all related to identity politics. The Right is trying to be Social Justice Warriors.

The Left is trying to keep people alive.

[oldbadger]

Then compare the Right Wings attempt at censorship:
No books on gay parents, no drag shows, don't say gay, ban certain songs because of lyrics, ban books because of sex, ban books because of Evolution, cancel the Left from all their media outlets, etc.

But these extreme rightists keep howling for 'Freedom'!!! They say that they want 'Freedom'! Heh heh!!!

They have nothing to do with public safety, but all related to identity politics. The Right is trying to be Social Justice Warriors.

The Left is trying to keep people alive.

There is no Social Justice in the harassment of transgenders, transexuals, gays, other nationals, races, cultures, colours, genders, etc etc.........

[boatsnguitars]

Then compare the Right Wings attempt at censorship:
No books on gay parents, no drag shows, don't say gay, ban certain songs because of lyrics, ban books because of sex, ban books because of Evolution, cancel the Left from all their media outlets, etc.

But these extreme rightists keep howling for 'Freedom'!!! They say that they want 'Freedom'! Heh heh!!!

They have nothing to do with public safety, but all related to identity politics. The Right is trying to be Social Justice Warriors.

The Left is trying to keep people alive.

There is no Social Justice in the harassment of transgenders, transexuals, gays, other nationals, races, cultures, colours, genders, etc etc.........

Totally agree. I mention the SJW because the Right has accused the Left of being SLW's (in the pejorative sense), meanwhile, I have never seen such thin-skinned SJW'ing than on the Right.

BTW, that reminds me. Have you noticed how the Right turns good things into bad things?
Think of all the things they think are bad, even Evil, about the Left: SJW, Woke, Progressive, Do-Gooder.

They will mock "Social Justice Warriors" as if Social Justice is bad
They mock "Woke" people for being aware of the plights of people in the minority.
They mock "Progressive" people for wanting to progress
They even mock "Do-Gooders" for wanting to do good!
They even mock Leftists for being "Peaceniks", as if Peace is bad!

It's a classic example of how the Right turns everything on its head. (I imagine it's how they can claim God is All-Just and All-Forgiving, and other contradictory statements)

I'm beginning to suspect that modern politics is basically a sorting of mental states and mental illnesses in groups. (It used to be said that the Left had their crazies on their side, like anti-vaxxers, crystal hippies, etc., but they seem to be migrating to the Right, since the Left is establishing itself as the pro-science, pro-logic, humanistic, Enlightenment group. So the wackos are finding a home on the Right because, "Hell, they'll let us believe anything!")

[oldbadger]

Totally agree. I mention the SJW because the Right has accused the Left of being SLW's (in the pejorative sense), meanwhile, I have never seen such thin-skinned SJW'ing than on the Right.

BTW, that reminds me. Have you noticed how the Right turns good things into bad things?
Think of all the things they think are bad, even Evil, about the Left: SJW, Woke, Progressive, Do-Gooder.

I notice that a high % of extreme rightists are fundamental Christians.
Don't they realise that Jesus was a Social Justice Warrior?
Everything that Jesus stood for they object to. The Poor Laws of the old testament are a typical example.

They will mock "Social Justice Warriors" as if Social Justice is bad
They mock "Woke" people for being aware of the plights of people in the minority.
They mock "Progressive" people for wanting to progress
They even mock "Do-Gooders" for wanting to do good!
They even mock Leftists for being "Peaceniks", as if Peace is bad!

............... and (mostly) they believe everything that they read or hear or see from Fox News!
It's a mad mad world.

It's a classic example of how the Right turns everything on its head. (I imagine it's how they can claim God is All-Just and All-Forgiving, and other contradictory statements)

Yes........ a kind of severe schizophrenic 'Jeckel and Hyde' mindset.

I'm beginning to suspect that modern politics is basically a sorting of mental states and mental illnesses in groups. (It used to be said that the Left had their crazies on their side, like anti-vaxxers, crystal hippies, etc., but they seem to be migrating to the Right, since the Left is establishing itself as the pro-science, pro-logic, humanistic, Enlightenment group. So the wackos are finding a home on the Right because, "Hell, they'll let us believe anything!")

I think that human nature is mostly daft. I remember back to the ideas and norms of the 50's........ shockingly strange.
Our children need strong socialised preparation to face human craziness for every and any time. I suspect that these times are as strange as any others that have gone by.

[boatsnguitars]

Totally agree. I mention the SJW because the Right has accused the Left of being SLW's (in the pejorative sense), meanwhile, I have never seen such thin-skinned SJW'ing than on the Right.

BTW, that reminds me. Have you noticed how the Right turns good things into bad things?
Think of all the things they think are bad, even Evil, about the Left: SJW, Woke, Progressive, Do-Gooder.

I notice that a high % of extreme rightists are fundamental Christians.
Don't they realise that Jesus was a Social Justice Warrior?
Everything that Jesus stood for they object to. The Poor Laws of the old testament are a typical example.

They will mock "Social Justice Warriors" as if Social Justice is bad
They mock "Woke" people for being aware of the plights of people in the minority.
They mock "Progressive" people for wanting to progress
They even mock "Do-Gooders" for wanting to do good!
They even mock Leftists for being "Peaceniks", as if Peace is bad!

............... and (mostly) they believe everything that they read or hear or see from Fox News!
It's a mad mad world.

It's a classic example of how the Right turns everything on its head. (I imagine it's how they can claim God is All-Just and All-Forgiving, and other contradictory statements)

Yes........ a kind of severe schizophrenic 'Jeckel and Hyde' mindset.

I'm beginning to suspect that modern politics is basically a sorting of mental states and mental illnesses in groups. (It used to be said that the Left had their crazies on their side, like anti-vaxxers, crystal hippies, etc., but they seem to be migrating to the Right, since the Left is establishing itself as the pro-science, pro-logic, humanistic, Enlightenment group. So the wackos are finding a home on the Right because, "Hell, they'll let us believe anything!")

I think that human nature is mostly daft. I remember back to the ideas and norms of the 50's........ shockingly strange.
Our children need strong socialised preparation to face human craziness for every and any time. I suspect that these times are as strange as any others that have gone by.

No doubt human nature is daft. We are, after all, slightly more intelligent than our cousins the Apes, yet, still Apes. It's amazing we can function at all.
I like to think there are groups trying to make sense of it and give us the best guidance they can with the information they have. Individually, we can't know everything, and so it's critical we 'stand on the shoulders of giants'. We need to start developing good, functional rules on how to recognize good vs bad info, how to allow free speech, and how to get critical information to those who need it.

Or not, I might not be that upset if Conservatives start injecting chlorine to cure their diseases... /jk.... or is it?

[brunumb]

I'm beginning to suspect that modern politics is basically a sorting of mental states and mental illnesses in groups. (It used to be said that the Left had their crazies on their side, like anti-vaxxers, crystal hippies, etc., but they seem to be migrating to the Right, since the Left is establishing itself as the pro-science, pro-logic, humanistic, Enlightenment group. So the wackos are finding a home on the Right because, "Hell, they'll let us believe anything!")

There is nothing pro-science in saying that men can be women and women can be men. There are biological males and biological females. All else is lifestyle choice or role play.

[boatsnguitars]

I'm beginning to suspect that modern politics is basically a sorting of mental states and mental illnesses in groups. (It used to be said that the Left had their crazies on their side, like anti-vaxxers, crystal hippies, etc., but they seem to be migrating to the Right, since the Left is establishing itself as the pro-science, pro-logic, humanistic, Enlightenment group. So the wackos are finding a home on the Right because, "Hell, they'll let us believe anything!")

There is nothing pro-science in saying that men can be women and women can be men. There are biological males and biological females. All else is lifestyle choice or role play.

Intersex people are role playing?