Winners only.

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

1. Yeah, definitely sounds like you support fascism. “The problem with people not like me is that they think not like me. Let’s f*cking erase their existence from reality.”

2. Joe Biden couldn’t have known the vaccines were safe and effective, because no long term trials had been done

1) I didn't say anything about wanting to erase anybody's existence. If I was running youtube, etc, I wouldn't have booted the "disinformation" crowd. I think it benefits society to leave them on those platforms vs forcing them to alternate platforms.

2) Isn't it implied that we don't know the long term effects of things that haven't been around a long time?

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

1) I didn't say anything about wanting to erase anybody's existence. If I was running youtube, etc, I wouldn't have booted the "disinformation" crowd. I think it benefits society to leave them on those platforms vs forcing them to alternate platforms.

2) Isn't it implied that we don't know the long term effects of things that haven't been around a long time?

Who determines what disinformation is? The state? The pros that have stopped the pandemic? Lol.

How the f*ck is it not disinformation to tell the public the vaccine is 100% safe and effective? Nobody knows!

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Who determines what disinformation is? The state? The pros that have stopped the pandemic? Lol.

How the f*ck is it not disinformation to tell the public the vaccine is 100% safe and effective? Nobody knows!

Disinformation has a definition. The dictionary definition of disinformation is false information disseminated with the intent to misled/propaganda.

OTOH, misinformation would be unintentional. Biden would be guilty of misinformation in this case, unless you think he was attempting to deceive us. OTOH, we had people taking VAERS data out of context to make the vaccine look dangerous.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Disinformation has a definition. The dictionary definition of disinformation is false information disseminated with the intent to misled/propaganda.

OTOH, misinformation would be unintentional. Biden would be guilty of misinformation in this case, unless you think he was attempting to deceive us. OTOH, we had people taking VAERS data out of context to make the vaccine look dangerous.

Who gets to write the definition of disinformation? I mean, you know what I’m getting at, I think. What’s the first amendment to the constitution?

 

[Bobbytwonames 5,000+ posts]

Disinformation has a definition. The dictionary definition of disinformation is false information disseminated with the intent to misled/propaganda.

OTOH, misinformation would be unintentional. Biden would be guilty of misinformation in this case, unless you think he was attempting to deceive us. OTOH, we had people taking VAERS data out of context to make the vaccine look dangerous.

He's an anti-vaxxer man. I actually think he would choose to not get vaccinated and die over getting a shot and living. I think he's that deep of an anti-vaxxer

 

[Bobbytwonames 5,000+ posts]

Who gets to write the definition of disinformation? I mean, you know what I’m getting at, I think. What’s the first amendment to the constitution?

He said the sky was blue. Who get's to define what blue is? According to the first amendment I can define blue however I want to. It's my Constitutional right.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Who determines what disinformation is? The state? The pros that have stopped the pandemic? Lol.

How the f*ck is it not disinformation to tell the public the vaccine is 100% safe and effective? Nobody knows!

Disinformation can be determined by anyone who knows facts and then sees statements contrary to those facts.

It is a fact that sugar is from a plant. If you claim it is man-made, I can determine you are spewing disinformation

If it is not known that sugar comes from a plant, then you are not spewing disinformation; you are making a claim that is unsupported by fact, or supported by limited facts.

The two situations are radically different.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

1) I didn't say anything about wanting to erase anybody's existence. If I was running youtube, etc, I wouldn't have booted the "disinformation" crowd. I think it benefits society to leave them on those platforms vs forcing them to alternate platforms.

2) Isn't it implied that we don't know the long term effects of things that haven't been around a long time?

But they DID remove people from social media, and they basically or effectively erased people off digital media. They do so based on the definitions of disinformation, which erasing people digitally is clearly technocratic fascism.

They censored sitting government officials dude

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Who gets to write the definition of disinformation? I mean, you know what I’m getting at, I think. What’s the first amendment to the constitution?

Youtube, twitter, etc are not gov't entities, so when you're on youtube, etc, they get to decide what counts as disinformation and what to do about it. I wouldn't sweat it too much, anti-vaxxers have done an excellent job disseminating disinformation. Furthermore, because the anti-vaxxers have been confined to an echo-chamber, there is nobody to point out the disinformation.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

But they DID remove people from social media, and they basically or effectively erased people off digital media. They do so based on the definitions of disinformation, which erasing people digitally is clearly technocratic fascism.

They censored sitting government officials dude

LOL - these people haven't been erased, they've merely changed platforms. Furthermore, I started this conversation by saying I don't agree with de-platforming...

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Disinformation can be determined by anyone who knows facts and then sees statements contrary to those facts.

It is a fact that sugar is from a plant. If you claim it is man-made, I can determine you are spewing disinformation

If it is not known that sugar comes from a plant, then you are not spewing disinformation; you are making a claim that is unsupported by fact, or supported by limited facts.

The two situations are radically different.

Unfortunately, it gets grey really quick. You have people just repeating, retweeting, disinformation, but they're doing so under the impression that the disinformation is true. A lot of people are too intellectually lazy to fact check things the fit their world view. A lot of people are either emotionally or intellectually incapable of fact checking things that fit their world view.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Youtube, twitter, etc are not gov't entities, so when you're on youtube, etc, they get to decide what counts as disinformation and what to do about it. I wouldn't sweat it too much, anti-vaxxers have done an excellent job disseminating disinformation. Furthermore, because the anti-vaxxers have been confined to an echo-chamber, there is nobody to point out the disinformation.

Section 230

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Section 230

230 has nothing to do with whether a private provider like YouTube can censor anything that a subscriber puts on the site, or boot them altogether.
It’s supposed to protect them from being sued for what subscribers put on the site.

Of course, there was that time the Trump administration tried to eliminate the protections afforded by Section 230, which would essentially have FORCED providers to censor in order to protect themselves from liability: https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/re...l-barr-josh-hawley-trump-internet-free-speech

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

But they DID remove people from social media, and they basically or effectively erased people off digital media. They do so based on the definitions of disinformation, which erasing people digitally is clearly technocratic fascism.

They censored sitting government officials dude

Private property. You can say what you want, but I decide whether you can be on my property when you say it.

It’s part of our rights as citizens. Why are you so hell-bent on taking away rights?