#46 President Joe Biden

The Juggler · March 2022

JB16057 said:

tbergs said:

JB16057 said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

haven't we been hearing about hunter's laptop for over 2 years now? how has this been suppressed?

Fucking Giuliani had it....not suppressed

How is this not suppression?

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/521823-50-former-intelligence-officials-warn-ny-post-story-sounds-like-russian

My favorite part of this:

Giuliani suggested he took the material to the Post because other outlets wanted to verify its authenticity, telling the Times “either nobody else would take it, or if they took it, they would spend all the time they could to try to contradict it before they put it out.”

And he was exactly right!

I feel sorry for you, man.

Ledbetterman10 · March 2022

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

tbergs said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

dankind said:

Do you have evidence that they are not?

So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.

I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.

The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.

Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.

People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.

Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.

As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.

If it was censored, how do you know about it? There are so many sources of information today, you can find what you want and most of it are lies. Again, Fox News says it's the "most watched" yet unless Twitter and Facebook are forced to post things (as a private company), it's censored? Give me a fucking break. Too many snowflakes.

This is ridiculous and you know it. Way more people these days get their news from links on Twitter than watch Fox News (or CNN and MSNBC for that matter). But even if that wasn’t the case, social media companies picking and choosing what can and can’t be shared is bullshit. Especially when you know it’s for partisan reasons. I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune if if was the other way around and the social media companies were doing the bidding of the conservatives. But I wouldn’t. I’d be just as against the conservatives being the gatekeepers of what is or isn’t “misinformation” as I am that the liberals are.

so you want to control what a private company allows on their platform?

for the record, Trump and other R's were allowed WAY more leeway on social media over 4 years all in the name of "public interest" than anything covid related over the last 2. so no, it wasn't partisan reasons. it was the public spoke up that they didn't want that bullshit on those platforms anymore, and the platforms obliged.

none of these companies make decisions like these unless there's enormous public pressure to do so. that's called marketing your product.

I actually used to make that same argument towards conservatives. “Hey, it’s their company, they can do what they want.” But I’ve changed my mind on that because those companies have become so powerful and have such control over how information is disseminated, that there really should be some sort of government regulation. But there won’t be because those companies give so much money to politicians (including republicans) that they’ll just continue to become more and more powerful.

So govt workers decide what is newsworthy. You think think is going to work out for conservatives? Glad you changed your mind and now against freedom of the press and private companies

Nope. I’m saying things published by news sources are newsworthy, and in this hypothetical regulation scenario, these government regulators (made of members from both parties) wouldn’t be deciding what can or can’t be shared, they’d see to it that everything gets shared equally regardless of the political views of the publication.

So before something goes to print, it has to come before a joint gov't committee. What happens when gov't is in recess? What happens when 'breaking news' happens? Since it has to be shared 'equally', does that mean neutrally? Who writes the stories? Does the gov't get to decide what DOESN'T get printed? Can they veto news? Why not?

I feel like you really haven't thought this through, starting with how this violates the First Amendment.

You’re not following me. We’re talking about social media. Nothing would change about how news is written. Everything still gets printed. But Facebook, Twitter, and Google wouldn’t be able to just choose what is and isn’t disinformation without being challenged on it. If something is challenged, then this bipartisan coalition of regulators step in and does something. Maybe a vote between them on whether or not it truly is disinformation after extensive fact-checking.

1. Why Google? They are a search engine.
2. Why not traditional media? Why do they get to omit certain stories but 'social media' do not?
3. What about Truth or other conservative websites and social media. Are they subject to it?
4. What about the First Amendment?

1) Google news results.

2) Social media companies don’t write the stories and never have. They disseminate stories from traditional media. I’m arguing that they are unbalanced in how they do that disseminating. You can agree or disagree with that. But stop going back to the actual reporting and creation of stories. That’s not what we’re talking about.

3) Sure. They’d just grow to be like the others without the same sort of regulations.

4) Guess this doesn’t need to be answered now that we’re clear I’m talking about dissemination of already published pieces.

mickeyrat · March 2022

Halifax2TheMax said:

Whaaaaaaaa!

https://youtu.be/PQOSilxFWBI

cmon man. take that shit to the trump thread.

mace1229 · March 2022

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

tbergs said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

dankind said:

Do you have evidence that they are not?

So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.

I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.

The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.

Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.

People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.

Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.

As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.

even fauci said it was possible, but that it was unlikely and until it's proven, it's useless to speculate, and not only useless, it's dangerous from what we already saw of racists and how asians were being treated simply because that's where the virus was first discovered/reported.

I don’t think lab vs wet market makes any difference to someone willing to commit a hate crimes against Asians.
But fot a year you were labeled a conspiracy nut for even considering the lab was a source. Posts were removed from social media for suggesting it. But no one had a problem spreading the wet market theory. But if the lab is possible, then we can’t know for sure it was the wet market either. I just don’t understand how one theory was acceptable to spread and the other labels you as a right wing nut.
And the irony to me is the wet market theory seems much more offensive .You’re saying the culture embraced unsanitary conditions that created a global virus, vs a research lab had a leak. If it does actually make a difference, I bet the wet market theory is going to spread more hate and fear. I just don’t understand the reasoning for trying to silence the lab theory so much while embracing the wet market one, what’s to gain from it?

mrussel1 · March 2022

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

tbergs said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

dankind said:

Do you have evidence that they are not?

So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.

I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.

The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.

Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.

People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.

Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.

As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.

If it was censored, how do you know about it? There are so many sources of information today, you can find what you want and most of it are lies. Again, Fox News says it's the "most watched" yet unless Twitter and Facebook are forced to post things (as a private company), it's censored? Give me a fucking break. Too many snowflakes.

This is ridiculous and you know it. Way more people these days get their news from links on Twitter than watch Fox News (or CNN and MSNBC for that matter). But even if that wasn’t the case, social media companies picking and choosing what can and can’t be shared is bullshit. Especially when you know it’s for partisan reasons. I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune if if was the other way around and the social media companies were doing the bidding of the conservatives. But I wouldn’t. I’d be just as against the conservatives being the gatekeepers of what is or isn’t “misinformation” as I am that the liberals are.

so you want to control what a private company allows on their platform?

for the record, Trump and other R's were allowed WAY more leeway on social media over 4 years all in the name of "public interest" than anything covid related over the last 2. so no, it wasn't partisan reasons. it was the public spoke up that they didn't want that bullshit on those platforms anymore, and the platforms obliged.

none of these companies make decisions like these unless there's enormous public pressure to do so. that's called marketing your product.

I actually used to make that same argument towards conservatives. “Hey, it’s their company, they can do what they want.” But I’ve changed my mind on that because those companies have become so powerful and have such control over how information is disseminated, that there really should be some sort of government regulation. But there won’t be because those companies give so much money to politicians (including republicans) that they’ll just continue to become more and more powerful.

So govt workers decide what is newsworthy. You think think is going to work out for conservatives? Glad you changed your mind and now against freedom of the press and private companies

Nope. I’m saying things published by news sources are newsworthy, and in this hypothetical regulation scenario, these government regulators (made of members from both parties) wouldn’t be deciding what can or can’t be shared, they’d see to it that everything gets shared equally regardless of the political views of the publication.

So before something goes to print, it has to come before a joint gov't committee. What happens when gov't is in recess? What happens when 'breaking news' happens? Since it has to be shared 'equally', does that mean neutrally? Who writes the stories? Does the gov't get to decide what DOESN'T get printed? Can they veto news? Why not?

I feel like you really haven't thought this through, starting with how this violates the First Amendment.

You’re not following me. We’re talking about social media. Nothing would change about how news is written. Everything still gets printed. But Facebook, Twitter, and Google wouldn’t be able to just choose what is and isn’t disinformation without being challenged on it. If something is challenged, then this bipartisan coalition of regulators step in and does something. Maybe a vote between them on whether or not it truly is disinformation after extensive fact-checking.

1. Why Google? They are a search engine.
2. Why not traditional media? Why do they get to omit certain stories but 'social media' do not?
3. What about Truth or other conservative websites and social media. Are they subject to it?
4. What about the First Amendment?

1) Google news results.

2) Social media companies don’t write the stories and never have. They disseminate stories from traditional media. I’m arguing that they are unbalanced in how they do that disseminating. You can agree or disagree with that. But stop going back to the actual reporting and creation of stories. That’s not what we’re talking about.

3) Sure. They’d just grow to be like the others without the same sort of regulations.

4) Guess this doesn’t need to be answered now that we’re clear I’m talking about dissemination of already published pieces.

1. Oh so now you want the gov't to control how search results get ordered. My what a slippery slope you are on. How many search engines are subject to gov't control? Perhaps China can assist with the algorithm.

2. So does this gov't committee do their research on the accuracy of the actual story? As someone pointed out, the NYTimes looked at this and passed. Then Rudy went to the Post. What if the Post's story is wrong and people on twitter on linking to it. Now the gov't is endorsing news and presumably not hiring the same quality team of fact checkers that the Times hired and passed on it. Explain to me how more bad information is better than less bad information?

4. It's pretty clear that it's a First Amendment violation. The company has its own speech rights as well.

Here's another solution.. bear with me here. How about a conservative leaning company start a social media platform that people use. Crazy right? I mean, is that a workable solution? Not that your First Amendment, heavy handed gov't idea where a committee researches and votes what is forced to be shared on social media doesn't sound like a great solution. But maybe a conservative can come up with something worth a shit and then we don't have to have the gov't violating rights.

Halifax2TheMax · March 2022

mickeyrat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Whaaaaaaaa!

https://youtu.be/PQOSilxFWBI

cmon man. take that shit to the trump thread.

Very much belongs in this thread. You a mod in your previous life?

Halifax2TheMax · March 2022

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

tbergs said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

dankind said:

Do you have evidence that they are not?

So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.

I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.

The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.

Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.

People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.

Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.

As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.

If it was censored, how do you know about it? There are so many sources of information today, you can find what you want and most of it are lies. Again, Fox News says it's the "most watched" yet unless Twitter and Facebook are forced to post things (as a private company), it's censored? Give me a fucking break. Too many snowflakes.

This is ridiculous and you know it. Way more people these days get their news from links on Twitter than watch Fox News (or CNN and MSNBC for that matter). But even if that wasn’t the case, social media companies picking and choosing what can and can’t be shared is bullshit. Especially when you know it’s for partisan reasons. I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune if if was the other way around and the social media companies were doing the bidding of the conservatives. But I wouldn’t. I’d be just as against the conservatives being the gatekeepers of what is or isn’t “misinformation” as I am that the liberals are.

so you want to control what a private company allows on their platform?

for the record, Trump and other R's were allowed WAY more leeway on social media over 4 years all in the name of "public interest" than anything covid related over the last 2. so no, it wasn't partisan reasons. it was the public spoke up that they didn't want that bullshit on those platforms anymore, and the platforms obliged.

none of these companies make decisions like these unless there's enormous public pressure to do so. that's called marketing your product.

I actually used to make that same argument towards conservatives. “Hey, it’s their company, they can do what they want.” But I’ve changed my mind on that because those companies have become so powerful and have such control over how information is disseminated, that there really should be some sort of government regulation. But there won’t be because those companies give so much money to politicians (including republicans) that they’ll just continue to become more and more powerful.

So govt workers decide what is newsworthy. You think think is going to work out for conservatives? Glad you changed your mind and now against freedom of the press and private companies

Nope. I’m saying things published by news sources are newsworthy, and in this hypothetical regulation scenario, these government regulators (made of members from both parties) wouldn’t be deciding what can or can’t be shared, they’d see to it that everything gets shared equally regardless of the political views of the publication.

So before something goes to print, it has to come before a joint gov't committee. What happens when gov't is in recess? What happens when 'breaking news' happens? Since it has to be shared 'equally', does that mean neutrally? Who writes the stories? Does the gov't get to decide what DOESN'T get printed? Can they veto news? Why not?

I feel like you really haven't thought this through, starting with how this violates the First Amendment.

You’re not following me. We’re talking about social media. Nothing would change about how news is written. Everything still gets printed. But Facebook, Twitter, and Google wouldn’t be able to just choose what is and isn’t disinformation without being challenged on it. If something is challenged, then this bipartisan coalition of regulators step in and does something. Maybe a vote between them on whether or not it truly is disinformation after extensive fact-checking.

1. Why Google? They are a search engine.
2. Why not traditional media? Why do they get to omit certain stories but 'social media' do not?
3. What about Truth or other conservative websites and social media. Are they subject to it?
4. What about the First Amendment?

1) Google news results.

2) Social media companies don’t write the stories and never have. They disseminate stories from traditional media. I’m arguing that they are unbalanced in how they do that disseminating. You can agree or disagree with that. But stop going back to the actual reporting and creation of stories. That’s not what we’re talking about.

3) Sure. They’d just grow to be like the others without the same sort of regulations.

4) Guess this doesn’t need to be answered now that we’re clear I’m talking about dissemination of already published pieces.

1. Oh so now you want the gov't to control how search results get ordered. My what a slippery slope you are on. How many search engines are subject to gov't control? Perhaps China can assist with the algorithm.

2. So does this gov't committee do their research on the accuracy of the actual story? As someone pointed out, the NYTimes looked at this and passed. Then Rudy went to the Post. What if the Post's story is wrong and people on twitter on linking to it. Now the gov't is endorsing news and presumably not hiring the same quality team of fact checkers that the Times hired and passed on it. Explain to me how more bad information is better than less bad information?

4. It's pretty clear that it's a First Amendment violation. The company has its own speech rights as well.

Here's another solution.. bear with me here. How about a conservative leaning company start a social media platform that people use. Crazy right? I mean, is that a workable solution? Not that your First Amendment, heavy handed gov't idea where a committee researches and votes what is forced to be shared on social media doesn't sound like a great solution. But maybe a conservative can come up with something worth a shit and then we don't have to have the gov't violating rights.

Too much work. Its easier to whine about being cancelled.

mickeyrat · March 2022

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-biden-united-states-europe-jen-psaki-91f79d3c9270cdedb6e702d41195fca8

Russia-Ukraine war Joe Biden Boris Johnson Jen Psaki NATO Poland Duda Andrzej Duda

White House: Biden to visit Poland on Europe trip this week

By COLLEEN LONG and ELLEN KNICKMEYER

Yesterday

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden has added a stop in Poland to his trip this week to Europe for urgent talks with NATO and European allies, as Russian forces concentrate their fire upon cities and trapped civilians in a nearly month-old invasion of Ukraine.

Biden will first travel to Brussels and then to Poland to meet with leaders there, press secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement Sunday night.

Poland is a crucial ally in the Ukraine crisis. It is hosting thousands of American troops and is taking in more people fleeing the war in Ukraine — more than 2 million — than any other nation in the midst of the largest European refugee crisis in decades.

Biden will head to Warsaw for a bilateral meeting with President Andrzej Duda scheduled for Saturday. Biden will discuss how the U.S., along with its allies and partners, is responding to “the humanitarian and human rights crisis that Russia’s unjustified and unprovoked war on Ukraine has created,” Psaki said.

On Monday ahead of his trip, Biden will discuss the war with European leaders. President Emmanuel Macron of France, Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany, Prime Minister Mario Draghi of Italy and Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the United Kingdom are expected to take part, the White House said Sunday.

MIDTERM ELECTIONS

Fight at Ohio GOP Senate debate elevates military issue

Civil rights group asks to join Virginia redistricting suit

Voting machine maker wins appeal in GOP election inquiry

Missouri's Greitens faces calls to end US Senate bid

White House officials have said Biden has no plans to travel to Ukraine. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, while in Poland this month, briefly crossed into neighboring Ukraine in a show of solidarity alongside that country’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba. Poland has been one of the most vocal countries in asking fellow NATO members to consider getting more involved to rein in the bloodshed.

President Joe Biden travels to Europe next week for face-to-face talks with European leaders about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Foreign policy expert Daniel Hamilton says Biden is taking the trip to "underscore solidarity with the allies." (March 15)

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine largely has united the U.S. and NATO and European allies, as well as allies in Asia and elsewhere. The United States and European governments see Moscow’s military aggression as a threat to their security and strategic interests.

Biden and NATO have said repeatedly that while the U.S. and NATO will provide weapons and other defensive support to non-NATO member Ukraine, they are determined to avoid any escalation on behalf of Kyiv that risks a broader war with Russia.

The Pentagon on March 9 rejected a Polish proposal for providing Ukraine with MiG fighter jets via a NATO air base, saying allied efforts against the Russian invasion should focus on more useful weaponry and that the MiG transfer with a U.S. and NATO connection would run a “high risk” of escalating the war.

Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has pleaded for the U.S. to provide his military with more aircraft and advanced air-defense systems. NATO and the United States have rejected his appeals to establish a “no-fly zone” over Ukraine to suppress Russian air power, saying it would put Western forces in direct conflict with Russian ones.

Determined resistance by Ukrainian fighters when Russian tanks and troops rolled into Ukraine in late February quickly defeated Russian forces’ attempts to storm Ukraine’s capital and unseat the westward-looking government. Denied an easy and early victory, Russia’s military is reverting to the scorched earth tactics of its past offensives in Syria and Chechnya, and pounding population centers with airstrikes and artillery barrages that leave civilians like those in the port city of Mariupol able to safely venture out for food or water, to bury the dead, or to flee.

After Biden rallied European allies to join in sweeping sanctions against Russia over the invasion at the outset, his tasks now include dealing with some NATO members that are pushing for more involvement directly in the fighting. That includes proposals by Poland for peacekeepers.

Biden’s trip includes a summit Thursday of NATO leaders, who will use the meeting to look at strengthening the bloc’s own deterrence and defense, immediately and in the long term, to deal with the now openly confrontational Putin.

That gathering is intended not just to show NATO’s “support to Ukraine, but also our readiness to protect and defend all NATO allies,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday.

“And by sending that message, we are preventing an escalation of the conflict to a full-fledged war between NATO and Russia,” Stoltenberg said.

Front-line NATO members on the alliance’s eastern flank are also asking for advanced U.S. and British air defense systems to guard against the kind of missile and air assaults Russia is unleashing on Ukraine.

“We have to strengthen our eastern flank of NATO. We have been talking about this for years, but now it’s time for action,″ Estonia’s prime minister, Kaja Kallas, told CNN’s ”State of the Union.”

She added: “We need some more capabilities to support ourselves and defend ourselves by air defense systems, what is definitely necessary here, but also the troops that are present that act as a deterrent also to the Russian military.”

continues....

Ledbetterman10 · March 2022

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

tbergs said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

dankind said:

Do you have evidence that they are not?

So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.

I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.

The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.

Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.

People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.

Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.

As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.

If it was censored, how do you know about it? There are so many sources of information today, you can find what you want and most of it are lies. Again, Fox News says it's the "most watched" yet unless Twitter and Facebook are forced to post things (as a private company), it's censored? Give me a fucking break. Too many snowflakes.

This is ridiculous and you know it. Way more people these days get their news from links on Twitter than watch Fox News (or CNN and MSNBC for that matter). But even if that wasn’t the case, social media companies picking and choosing what can and can’t be shared is bullshit. Especially when you know it’s for partisan reasons. I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune if if was the other way around and the social media companies were doing the bidding of the conservatives. But I wouldn’t. I’d be just as against the conservatives being the gatekeepers of what is or isn’t “misinformation” as I am that the liberals are.

so you want to control what a private company allows on their platform?

for the record, Trump and other R's were allowed WAY more leeway on social media over 4 years all in the name of "public interest" than anything covid related over the last 2. so no, it wasn't partisan reasons. it was the public spoke up that they didn't want that bullshit on those platforms anymore, and the platforms obliged.

none of these companies make decisions like these unless there's enormous public pressure to do so. that's called marketing your product.

I actually used to make that same argument towards conservatives. “Hey, it’s their company, they can do what they want.” But I’ve changed my mind on that because those companies have become so powerful and have such control over how information is disseminated, that there really should be some sort of government regulation. But there won’t be because those companies give so much money to politicians (including republicans) that they’ll just continue to become more and more powerful.

So govt workers decide what is newsworthy. You think think is going to work out for conservatives? Glad you changed your mind and now against freedom of the press and private companies

Nope. I’m saying things published by news sources are newsworthy, and in this hypothetical regulation scenario, these government regulators (made of members from both parties) wouldn’t be deciding what can or can’t be shared, they’d see to it that everything gets shared equally regardless of the political views of the publication.

So before something goes to print, it has to come before a joint gov't committee. What happens when gov't is in recess? What happens when 'breaking news' happens? Since it has to be shared 'equally', does that mean neutrally? Who writes the stories? Does the gov't get to decide what DOESN'T get printed? Can they veto news? Why not?

I feel like you really haven't thought this through, starting with how this violates the First Amendment.

You’re not following me. We’re talking about social media. Nothing would change about how news is written. Everything still gets printed. But Facebook, Twitter, and Google wouldn’t be able to just choose what is and isn’t disinformation without being challenged on it. If something is challenged, then this bipartisan coalition of regulators step in and does something. Maybe a vote between them on whether or not it truly is disinformation after extensive fact-checking.

1. Why Google? They are a search engine.
2. Why not traditional media? Why do they get to omit certain stories but 'social media' do not?
3. What about Truth or other conservative websites and social media. Are they subject to it?
4. What about the First Amendment?

1) Google news results.

2) Social media companies don’t write the stories and never have. They disseminate stories from traditional media. I’m arguing that they are unbalanced in how they do that disseminating. You can agree or disagree with that. But stop going back to the actual reporting and creation of stories. That’s not what we’re talking about.

3) Sure. They’d just grow to be like the others without the same sort of regulations.

4) Guess this doesn’t need to be answered now that we’re clear I’m talking about dissemination of already published pieces.

1. Oh so now you want the gov't to control how search results get ordered. My what a slippery slope you are on. How many search engines are subject to gov't control? Perhaps China can assist with the algorithm.

2. So does this gov't committee do their research on the accuracy of the actual story? As someone pointed out, the NYTimes looked at this and passed. Then Rudy went to the Post. What if the Post's story is wrong and people on twitter on linking to it. Now the gov't is endorsing news and presumably not hiring the same quality team of fact checkers that the Times hired and passed on it. Explain to me how more bad information is better than less bad information?

4. It's pretty clear that it's a First Amendment violation. The company has its own speech rights as well.

Here's another solution.. bear with me here. How about a conservative leaning company start a social media platform that people use. Crazy right? I mean, is that a workable solution? Not that your First Amendment, heavy handed gov't idea where a committee researches and votes what is forced to be shared on social media doesn't sound like a great solution. But maybe a conservative can come up with something worth a shit and then we don't have to have the gov't violating rights.

I’ve made that “why doesn’t a conservative just make one” argument as well. But at this point, a successful conservative-run social media platform would just be a huge echo chamber since no liberals would join it (except trolls). Then, with less conservatives on Twitter, that could become a liberal echo chamber. I guess I’d rather them fight it out over laptops and emails or whatever then just talk amongst themselves.

mickeyrat · March 2022

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-biden-technology-europe-7dfac9625e014c021a756ad2d5c93573

Russia-Ukraine war Joe Biden

Biden warns US companies of potential Russian cyberattacks

By ALAN SUDERMAN

46 mins ago

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — President Joe Biden is urging U.S. companies to make sure their digital doors are locked tight because of “evolving intelligence” that Russia is considering launching cyberattacks against critical infrastructure targets as the war in Ukraine continues.

Biden's top cybersecurity aide, Anne Neuberger, expressed frustration at a White House press briefing Monday that some critical infrastructure entities have ignored alerts from federal agencies to fix known problems in software that could be exploited by Russian hackers.

“Notwithstanding these repeated warnings, we continue to see adversaries compromising systems that use known vulnerabilities for which there are patches,” said Neuberger, who is the president’s deputy national security adviser for cyber and emerging technologies. “That makes it far easier for attackers than it needs to be.”

The federal government has been providing warnings to U.S. companies of the threats posed by Russian state hackers since long before the country invaded Ukraine last month. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has launched a “Shields Up” campaign aimed at helping companies strengthen their defenses and has urged companies to back up their data, turn on multifactor authentication and take other steps to improve cyber hygiene.

RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR

Russia-Ukraine war: Key things to know about the conflict

Live updates: Zelenskyy hails protesters confronting troops

As Mariupol hangs on, the extent of the horror not yet known

In visit, Biden will thank Polish leader for refugee efforts

Neuberger said there's no intelligence suggesting a specific Russian cyberattack against U.S. targets, but she did add that there has been increase in “preparatory activity,” like scanning websites and hunting for vulnerabilities, that is common among nation-state hackers.

In a statement, Biden said Russia could launch an cyberattack against U.S. targets as retaliation for “the unprecedented economic costs we’ve imposed” on Russia through sanctions.

President Joe Biden and his top cybersecurity aide are warning US companies there is "evolving intelligence" that Russian is considering launching cyberattacks against critical infrastructure as the war in Ukraine grinds on. (March 21)

“It's part of Russia's playbook,” Biden said.

The United States and its allies have put a slew of sanctions in place aimed at crippling the Russian economy, and Biden recently announced the U.S. is sending more anti-aircraft, anti-armor weapons and drones to help Ukraine.

John Hultquist, a vice president of intelligence analysis at the cybersecurity firm Mandiant, said cyberattacks gives Russia the ability to punch back.

“Cyberattacks are a means for them to exact costs without crossing a major red line,” he said.

Russia is considered a hacking powerhouse but its offensive cyberattacks since it invaded Ukraine have been muted compared to what some feared. Russia has carried out significant cyberattacks against Ukraine in years past, including the devastating NotPetya attack in 2017 that spread far and wide and caused more than $10 billion in damage globally.

continues......

DewieCox · March 2022

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

tbergs said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

dankind said:

Do you have evidence that they are not?

So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.

I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.

The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.

Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.

People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.

Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.

As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.

even fauci said it was possible, but that it was unlikely and until it's proven, it's useless to speculate, and not only useless, it's dangerous from what we already saw of racists and how asians were being treated simply because that's where the virus was first discovered/reported.

I don’t think lab vs wet market makes any difference to someone willing to commit a hate crimes against Asians.
But fot a year you were labeled a conspiracy nut for even considering the lab was a source. Posts were removed from social media for suggesting it. But no one had a problem spreading the wet market theory. But if the lab is possible, then we can’t know for sure it was the wet market either. I just don’t understand how one theory was acceptable to spread and the other labels you as a right wing nut.
And the irony to me is the wet market theory seems much more offensive .You’re saying the culture embraced unsanitary conditions that created a global virus, vs a research lab had a leak. If it does actually make a difference, I bet the wet market theory is going to spread more hate and fear. I just don’t understand the reasoning for trying to silence the lab theory so much while embracing the wet market one, what’s to gain from it?

Give me an example where the mere suggestion was censored. I’ve asked several times on various platforms and have been met with shady sources, outright hard claims with no truth, and various whataboutisms without fail.

mace1229 · March 2022

DewieCox said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

tbergs said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

dankind said:

Do you have evidence that they are not?

So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.

I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.

The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.

Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.

People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.

Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.

As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.

even fauci said it was possible, but that it was unlikely and until it's proven, it's useless to speculate, and not only useless, it's dangerous from what we already saw of racists and how asians were being treated simply because that's where the virus was first discovered/reported.

I don’t think lab vs wet market makes any difference to someone willing to commit a hate crimes against Asians.
But fot a year you were labeled a conspiracy nut for even considering the lab was a source. Posts were removed from social media for suggesting it. But no one had a problem spreading the wet market theory. But if the lab is possible, then we can’t know for sure it was the wet market either. I just don’t understand how one theory was acceptable to spread and the other labels you as a right wing nut.
And the irony to me is the wet market theory seems much more offensive .You’re saying the culture embraced unsanitary conditions that created a global virus, vs a research lab had a leak. If it does actually make a difference, I bet the wet market theory is going to spread more hate and fear. I just don’t understand the reasoning for trying to silence the lab theory so much while embracing the wet market one, what’s to gain from it?

Give me an example where the mere suggestion was censored. I’ve asked several times on various platforms and have been met with shady sources, outright hard claims with no truth, and various whataboutisms without fail.

Supposedly videos were removed from YouTube and other social media that had people, even doctors, who promoted the lab theory. I don’t have links to show you, they were removed.
Im not going to scroll through a year’s worth of comments here, but I would be shocked if there weren’t several members who mocked anyone considering the lab theory.
Can you show me any indication where the wet market theory was censored or removed from social media? I’ve never heard of one. So the two theories didn’t receive equal treatment. One was accepted and one labeled you as a nut case, but in reality neither was proved and both are probably equally likely.

mrussel1 · March 2022

mace1229 said:

DewieCox said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

tbergs said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

dankind said:

Do you have evidence that they are not?

So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.

I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.

The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.

Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.

People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.

Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.

As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.

even fauci said it was possible, but that it was unlikely and until it's proven, it's useless to speculate, and not only useless, it's dangerous from what we already saw of racists and how asians were being treated simply because that's where the virus was first discovered/reported.

I don’t think lab vs wet market makes any difference to someone willing to commit a hate crimes against Asians.
But fot a year you were labeled a conspiracy nut for even considering the lab was a source. Posts were removed from social media for suggesting it. But no one had a problem spreading the wet market theory. But if the lab is possible, then we can’t know for sure it was the wet market either. I just don’t understand how one theory was acceptable to spread and the other labels you as a right wing nut.
And the irony to me is the wet market theory seems much more offensive .You’re saying the culture embraced unsanitary conditions that created a global virus, vs a research lab had a leak. If it does actually make a difference, I bet the wet market theory is going to spread more hate and fear. I just don’t understand the reasoning for trying to silence the lab theory so much while embracing the wet market one, what’s to gain from it?

Give me an example where the mere suggestion was censored. I’ve asked several times on various platforms and have been met with shady sources, outright hard claims with no truth, and various whataboutisms without fail.

Supposedly videos were removed from YouTube and other social media that had people, even doctors, who promoted the lab theory. I don’t have links to show you, they were removed.
Im not going to scroll through a year’s worth of comments here, but I would be shocked if there weren’t several members who mocked anyone considering the lab theory.
Can you show me any indication where the wet market theory was censored or removed from social media? I’ve never heard of one. So the two theories didn’t receive equal treatment. One was accepted and one labeled you as a nut case, but in reality neither was proved and both are probably equally likely.

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that You Tube does not have teh right to remove videos, or should otherwise be prohibited by the gov't to remove videos?

DewieCox · March 2022

mace1229 said:

DewieCox said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

tbergs said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

dankind said:

Do you have evidence that they are not?

So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.

I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.

The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.

Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.

People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.

Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.

As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.

even fauci said it was possible, but that it was unlikely and until it's proven, it's useless to speculate, and not only useless, it's dangerous from what we already saw of racists and how asians were being treated simply because that's where the virus was first discovered/reported.

I don’t think lab vs wet market makes any difference to someone willing to commit a hate crimes against Asians.
But fot a year you were labeled a conspiracy nut for even considering the lab was a source. Posts were removed from social media for suggesting it. But no one had a problem spreading the wet market theory. But if the lab is possible, then we can’t know for sure it was the wet market either. I just don’t understand how one theory was acceptable to spread and the other labels you as a right wing nut.
And the irony to me is the wet market theory seems much more offensive .You’re saying the culture embraced unsanitary conditions that created a global virus, vs a research lab had a leak. If it does actually make a difference, I bet the wet market theory is going to spread more hate and fear. I just don’t understand the reasoning for trying to silence the lab theory so much while embracing the wet market one, what’s to gain from it?

Give me an example where the mere suggestion was censored. I’ve asked several times on various platforms and have been met with shady sources, outright hard claims with no truth, and various whataboutisms without fail.

Supposedly videos were removed from YouTube and other social media that had people, even doctors, who promoted the lab theory. I don’t have links to show you, they were removed.
Im not going to scroll through a year’s worth of comments here, but I would be shocked if there weren’t several members who mocked anyone considering the lab theory.
Can you show me any indication where the wet market theory was censored or removed from social media? I’ve never heard of one. So the two theories didn’t receive equal treatment. One was accepted and one labeled you as a nut case, but in reality neither was proved and both are probably equally likely.

Fair enough, honestly never really paid too much attention to either theory or of the potential likelihood of one over the other. I know both were adopted by the “difference between conspiracy and reality is about 6 months” crowd in different forms.

bootlegger10 · March 2022

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

DewieCox said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

tbergs said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

dankind said:

Do you have evidence that they are not?

So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.

I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.

The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.

Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.

People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.

Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.

As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.

even fauci said it was possible, but that it was unlikely and until it's proven, it's useless to speculate, and not only useless, it's dangerous from what we already saw of racists and how asians were being treated simply because that's where the virus was first discovered/reported.

I don’t think lab vs wet market makes any difference to someone willing to commit a hate crimes against Asians.
But fot a year you were labeled a conspiracy nut for even considering the lab was a source. Posts were removed from social media for suggesting it. But no one had a problem spreading the wet market theory. But if the lab is possible, then we can’t know for sure it was the wet market either. I just don’t understand how one theory was acceptable to spread and the other labels you as a right wing nut.
And the irony to me is the wet market theory seems much more offensive .You’re saying the culture embraced unsanitary conditions that created a global virus, vs a research lab had a leak. If it does actually make a difference, I bet the wet market theory is going to spread more hate and fear. I just don’t understand the reasoning for trying to silence the lab theory so much while embracing the wet market one, what’s to gain from it?

Give me an example where the mere suggestion was censored. I’ve asked several times on various platforms and have been met with shady sources, outright hard claims with no truth, and various whataboutisms without fail.

Supposedly videos were removed from YouTube and other social media that had people, even doctors, who promoted the lab theory. I don’t have links to show you, they were removed.
Im not going to scroll through a year’s worth of comments here, but I would be shocked if there weren’t several members who mocked anyone considering the lab theory.
Can you show me any indication where the wet market theory was censored or removed from social media? I’ve never heard of one. So the two theories didn’t receive equal treatment. One was accepted and one labeled you as a nut case, but in reality neither was proved and both are probably equally likely.

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that You Tube does not have teh right to remove videos, or should otherwise be prohibited by the gov't to remove videos?

Google, YouTube and Facebook are part of the top 5 visited websites in the world (based on a quick Google search). Most people are not going to dig to find news sources. Are you okay if the top viewed websites prevent people from posting articles, stories, views that do not fit the political narrative that the company supports? I get the argument that these are private businesses. I just want to know if you have any concerns about a few companies have that much power. If everyone was discerning about their news sources, dug in to various sources, etc... than I wouldn't be concerned about it. But that is not how the public is (or at least my thinking). So a situation where the top 5, 10 15, or 20 news sources online all preach from the same hymnal or bow to political or social pressure to prevent certain thoughts or ideas is scary to me.

Posting complete nonsense is also scary so it is a slippery slope.

Halifax2TheMax · March 2022

Let’s legitimize the further dumbing down of the globe, either by excusing intellectual laziness or allowing misinformation or disinformation to be promoted as “truth and/or fact.”

bootlegger10 · March 2022

Halifax2TheMax said:

Let’s legitimize the further dumbing down of the globe, either by excusing intellectual laziness or allowing misinformation or disinformation to be promoted as “truth and/or fact.”

Pretend you live in Russia. Pretend you live in 1930's/40's Germany. Right now you feel like the news agencies and tech firms are in sync with your viewpoints so who cares if they discredit stories or not allow certain views to be discussed until the party in charge deems it okay (which happened with the Wuhan lab theory). There may be a time where that isn't the case.

I would think spoon feeding and only allowing popular/accepted viewpoints would contribute to the dumbing down as well.

The Juggler · March 2022

bootlegger10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Let’s legitimize the further dumbing down of the globe, either by excusing intellectual laziness or allowing misinformation or disinformation to be promoted as “truth and/or fact.”

Pretend you live in Russia. Pretend you live in 1930's/40's Germany. Right now you feel like the news agencies and tech firms are in sync with your viewpoints so who cares if they discredit stories or not allow certain views to be discussed until the party in charge deems it okay (which happened with the Wuhan lab theory). There may be a time where that isn't the case.

I would think spoon feeding and only allowing popular/accepted viewpoints would contribute to the dumbing down as well.

You're comparing some private company banning some videos to living in Nazi Germany?

Halifax2TheMax · March 2022

bootlegger10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Let’s legitimize the further dumbing down of the globe, either by excusing intellectual laziness or allowing misinformation or disinformation to be promoted as “truth and/or fact.”

Pretend you live in Russia. Pretend you live in 1930's/40's Germany. Right now you feel like the news agencies and tech firms are in sync with your viewpoints so who cares if they discredit stories or not allow certain views to be discussed until the party in charge deems it okay (which happened with the Wuhan lab theory). There may be a time where that isn't the case.

I would think spoon feeding and only allowing popular/accepted viewpoints would contribute to the dumbing down as well.

Sorry, but I take the time to read books, magazines and newspapers that represent differing views or provide background information on subject matter. I’m not relying on Google, Faceturd, my Apple news feed or Twitter for my information. Further, the last time I checked, libraries still exist in this country, although with all the fear about “information” being available (think CRT or Heather Has Two Mommies), that might not be the case in several years.

Halifax2TheMax · March 2022

What’s up with the …. Replacing words or ends of words? I go to edit it and in the edit function it looks how I typed. Save edits and I get …

… = blah, blah, blah?

#46 President Joe Biden

Comments

Categories