#46 President Joe Biden

"Heavily mocked" is in the same category as censorship (by private companies) too?

The Juggler said:

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?

Exactly, I'm equating Nazi Germany to YouTube suppressing Wuhan lab theories.  Don't be ridiculous.

I just don't understand how cavalier some of you are about how large and influential these massive tech companies are.   They are making decisions about our futures that far exceeds any influence that government has had on our lives and futures.  Some are good, some are bad.  Ozark - Good!  Season 3 of Bloodline - Bad!  

Some of you think the general public is going to go to the library and research 10 different news organizations.  That isn't realistic and it isn't because of laziness.  It is because some people are busy or some are more trusting and don't feel they need to look at 10 different news outlets.  Right now the tech companies are on the side of liberals and liberal causes so you don't care and gladly would back the private company argument (when it suits you).  Most of the time though to this group on here they are evil corporations that don't pay enough tax, pollute the planet, need to be regulated, etc... and who gives an F if they are a private business.    But what I meant by Russia or Germany, is that it isn't unthinkable (because it has happened and will happen again) for times to change and these large tech/media companies that control most of the web visits may push a narrative that you may not like, or perhaps you think you like but it is lies, and there is no room for dissent.  

I don't know the right answer, I'm just surprised that people on here are so accepting of censorship by these large social media companies.  

tbergs said:

bootlegger10 said:

The Juggler said:

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?

Exactly, I'm equating Nazi Germany to YouTube suppressing Wuhan lab theories.  Don't be ridiculous.

I just don't understand how cavalier some of you are about how large and influential these massive tech companies are.   They are making decisions about our futures that far exceeds any influence that government has had on our lives and futures.  Some are good, some are bad.  Ozark - Good!  Season 3 of Bloodline - Bad!  

Some of you think the general public is going to go to the library and research 10 different news organizations.  That isn't realistic and it isn't because of laziness.  It is because some people are busy or some are more trusting and don't feel they need to look at 10 different news outlets.  Right now the tech companies are on the side of liberals and liberal causes so you don't care and gladly would back the private company argument (when it suits you).  Most of the time though to this group on here they are evil corporations that don't pay enough tax, pollute the planet, need to be regulated, etc... and who gives an F if they are a private business.    But what I meant by Russia or Germany, is that it isn't unthinkable (because it has happened and will happen again) for times to change and these large tech/media companies that control most of the web visits may push a narrative that you may not like, or perhaps you think you like but it is lies, and there is no room for dissent.  

I don't know the right answer, I'm just surprised that people on here are so accepting of censorship by these large social media companies.  

Entertain me for a minute, I haven't delved in to this a lot outside the general complaints, but what has been removed/blocked? I remember certain Tweets getting a disclaimer when not verified or outright inaccurate. I mean, Alex Jones and Joe Rogan seemed to be spreading misinformation just fine.

Biden orders review of Covid origins as intel weighs Wuhan lab leak theory (cnbc.com) - May 26th, 2021

Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made | Facebook | The Guardian   - May 27th, 2021

mace1229 said:

The Juggler said:

"Heavily mocked" is in the same category as censorship (by private companies) too?

Being called xenophobic and anti-vaxxism for questioning the lab theory is. Just searching for Covid leak in the forums this article was shared.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins


 The Lancet,among the most respected and influential medical journals in the world, published a statement that roundly rejected the lab-leak hypothesis, effectively casting it as a xenophobic cousin to climate change denialism and anti-vaxxism.

Are you pretending that people weren’t called conspiracy nuts for suggesting the lab leak a year ago?

Paywall on the first link. No idea what Lancet is on the second link. 

I'm just confused how being mocked for something is the same thing as censorship. I'm also confused by how a private company removing some videos on their own website is considered censorship as well.

mace1229 said:

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?

No, I’m not suggestion that. Just pointing the different treatments the different theories got. One was accepted, the other censored and heavily mocked if you even brought it up. Neither have been proven and both are probably just as likely. I was also pointing out I don’t understand the reasoning behind holding into the wet market theory so tightly. The wet market doesn’t seem any more likely that a lab leak, especially considering where the virus first came from, the research lab being right there, China’s lack of cooperation, etc. But yet for a year it was unacceptable to question the wet market theory. And by unacceptable I mean you were mocked by many and sometimes censored by social media and accused of spreading misinformation.

So to be clear, are you like Bootlegger and think that gov't has a place to interfere in this, or are you just generally wondering, etc.?

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

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?

No, I’m not suggestion that. Just pointing the different treatments the different theories got. One was accepted, the other censored and heavily mocked if you even brought it up. Neither have been proven and both are probably just as likely. I was also pointing out I don’t understand the reasoning behind holding into the wet market theory so tightly. The wet market doesn’t seem any more likely that a lab leak, especially considering where the virus first came from, the research lab being right there, China’s lack of cooperation, etc. But yet for a year it was unacceptable to question the wet market theory. And by unacceptable I mean you were mocked by many and sometimes censored by social media and accused of spreading misinformation.

So to be clear, are you like Bootlegger and think that gov't has a place to interfere in this, or are you just generally wondering, etc.?

I don’t think the govt has a place to interfere and I’m not just wondering. A comment was made that the two different theories received vastly different responses at first. I was just agreeing and pointing out examples of why I agree. Wet market theory was pushed and accepted by many, you were often called a conspiracy theorist for believing it could be the lab and your comments sometimes deleted. That doesn’t mean government needs to be involved. It doesn’t make sense to me that it happened, it didn’t have to. The only reason I could think of is that Trump supported the lab leak theory, so half the country felt the need to criticize anyone who thought it was plausible. Just a month or 2 after him leaving office it became an acceptable theory.

There is a Trump phenomenon here, that he created.  He had such a habit of lying for his own benefit, it became reflexive to disagree with him because there was a deep suspicion that everything he said and did only benefitted him or tore down a political enemy.  

mrussel1 said:

bootlegger10 said:

The Juggler said:

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?

Exactly, I'm equating Nazi Germany to YouTube suppressing Wuhan lab theories.  Don't be ridiculous.

I just don't understand how cavalier some of you are about how large and influential these massive tech companies are.   They are making decisions about our futures that far exceeds any influence that government has had on our lives and futures.  Some are good, some are bad.  Ozark - Good!  Season 3 of Bloodline - Bad!  

Some of you think the general public is going to go to the library and research 10 different news organizations.  That isn't realistic and it isn't because of laziness.  It is because some people are busy or some are more trusting and don't feel they need to look at 10 different news outlets.  Right now the tech companies are on the side of liberals and liberal causes so you don't care and gladly would back the private company argument (when it suits you).  Most of the time though to this group on here they are evil corporations that don't pay enough tax, pollute the planet, need to be regulated, etc... and who gives an F if they are a private business.    But what I meant by Russia or Germany, is that it isn't unthinkable (because it has happened and will happen again) for times to change and these large tech/media companies that control most of the web visits may push a narrative that you may not like, or perhaps you think you like but it is lies, and there is no room for dissent.  

I don't know the right answer, I'm just surprised that people on here are so accepting of censorship by these large social media companies.  

Your definition of censorship is vastly different than mine and probably others here.  That's the difference.  

We are disagreeing on the role of the tech companies and whether they are essentially a public good.  Yes, they are owned by private companies, but at some does it become bigger than the shareholders that own it?  Should it be regulated like an public utility?  Here is a scenario I could see happening as consolidation happens over time:

Where people get their news:
Facebook - 30%
Google-30%
Youtube-30%
Other sources-10%

Let's say the CEO's, etc.. of these businesses side with a certain ideology and perhaps political party at some point in time, and start to label things as fake news that don't match their agenda, act like state owned media, etc...  From what I gather from your comments, this is perfectly okay as they are privately owned businesses.  We will just trust that the other 10% of media gets listened to and everything will be fine.  

You clearly believe these companies have huge influence as you want them to take down fake stories or put disclaimers up.  You aren't on the flip side concerned about the "negative" influence they would have if all of sudden they started taking down stories or putting disclaimers up about information you believed was true?  

I understand what censorship is, and I'm not saying I know how to prevent misinformation.  It is just a slippery slope as we live in the West and are fortunate to have access to all sorts of information.   Ignorance is bliss.  If you lived in Russia right now where all the news is the same, you might believe all sorts of lies about Ukraine.   I just can't fathom how people here have so much faith in the influence of these unelected tech elites to do the right thing.  

bootlegger10 said:

mrussel1 said:

bootlegger10 said:

The Juggler said:

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?

Exactly, I'm equating Nazi Germany to YouTube suppressing Wuhan lab theories.  Don't be ridiculous.

I just don't understand how cavalier some of you are about how large and influential these massive tech companies are.   They are making decisions about our futures that far exceeds any influence that government has had on our lives and futures.  Some are good, some are bad.  Ozark - Good!  Season 3 of Bloodline - Bad!  

Some of you think the general public is going to go to the library and research 10 different news organizations.  That isn't realistic and it isn't because of laziness.  It is because some people are busy or some are more trusting and don't feel they need to look at 10 different news outlets.  Right now the tech companies are on the side of liberals and liberal causes so you don't care and gladly would back the private company argument (when it suits you).  Most of the time though to this group on here they are evil corporations that don't pay enough tax, pollute the planet, need to be regulated, etc... and who gives an F if they are a private business.    But what I meant by Russia or Germany, is that it isn't unthinkable (because it has happened and will happen again) for times to change and these large tech/media companies that control most of the web visits may push a narrative that you may not like, or perhaps you think you like but it is lies, and there is no room for dissent.  

I don't know the right answer, I'm just surprised that people on here are so accepting of censorship by these large social media companies.  

Your definition of censorship is vastly different than mine and probably others here.  That's the difference.  

We are disagreeing on the role of the tech companies and whether they are essentially a public good.  Yes, they are owned by private companies, but at some does it become bigger than the shareholders that own it?  Should it be regulated like an public utility?  Here is a scenario I could see happening as consolidation happens over time:

Where people get their news:
Facebook - 30%
Google-30%
Youtube-30%
Other sources-10%

Let's say the CEO's, etc.. of these businesses side with a certain ideology and perhaps political party at some point in time, and start to label things as fake news that don't match their agenda, act like state owned media, etc...  From what I gather from your comments, this is perfectly okay as they are privately owned businesses.  We will just trust that the other 10% of media gets listened to and everything will be fine.  

You clearly believe these companies have huge influence as you want them to take down fake stories or put disclaimers up.  You aren't on the flip side concerned about the "negative" influence they would have if all of sudden they started taking down stories or putting disclaimers up about information you believed was true?  

I understand what censorship is, and I'm not saying I know how to prevent misinformation.  It is just a slippery slope as we live in the West and are fortunate to have access to all sorts of information.   Ignorance is bliss.  If you lived in Russia right now where all the news is the same, you might believe all sorts of lies about Ukraine.   I just can't fathom how people here have so much faith in the influence of these unelected tech elites to do the right thing.  

No, it's not a utility.  People generally lack choices in utilities or there may be one other option (maybe for waste, or cable but not electricity).  There are nothing but choices when it comes to news and information.  That's a really big difference.  

I read false, misinformation and incomplete information all the time.  I read Fox, Breitbart, the NY Post.  Breitbart in particular posts nothing but misinformation.  But I don't care.  I laugh, I get annoyed.  But I don't expect them to post what HuffPo posts.   

And we don't live in Russia, but your recommendations that there is some government body that forces private companies to post or remove information gets us one step closer to Russia.  Your quest for neutrality leads to government overreach and eventually censorship.