Meta's Zuckerberg gets rid of fact-checkers

[Aldebaran]

What a glorious time it is to be “conservative”!

Think of all of the changes that these fine people will bring to our divided Nation!

I'm glad you're abandoning your 2 previous assertions.

 

[Pommer]

I'm glad you're abandoning your 2 previous assertions.

They’re fine right where they are, they don’t need me to prop them up.

 

[Aldebaran]

They’re fine right where they are, they don’t need me to prop them up.

The fact that I refuted both of them indicates otherwise.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Too bad, eh? Such a law would certainly be Constitutional. Can't have that! LOL!

It is possible to write such a law. In 8 days, Conservatives will have control of Washington, including the House, the Senate, and the White House. President-elect Trump can request Congress to draft such a law.

 

[probinson]

Youtube smootude. Not interested. If you have information showing where government was ""conducting well-coordinated propaganda campaign" of disinformation" given covid, then show it.

I did. You won't watch it.

And yes, I believe people like epidemiologists who spend their lives in that field are the best sources as how to handle a pandemic.

I'm sure you do. I'm sure you're not at all concerned with their numerous conflicts of interest, and I'm sure you only believe that the epidemiologists that regurgitate the approved narrative are the best sources.

 

[probinson]

Let's look at just one example of a well-coordinated, government propaganda campaign that was blatant misinformation.

15 days to slow the spread.

The people that instated this policy KNEW that it would not work. They KNEW that they would need more than 15 days. But they decided to lie to the entire country and suggest that if we all just stayed home from 15 days, everything would be fine. They KNEW that was not true. They KNEW they were lying.

None of the self-anointed "fact-checkers" ever addressed this. Birx said directly that she knew that 15 days would never be enough, yet they got up in front of the nation and lied to everyone, knowing their proposal would never work, and that they were just priming people to stay home for much, much longer.

Oh, but not really. See, some people could stay home. But countless people still had to go to work. I mean, how are you going to order DoorDash for dinner if there isn't someone at the restaurant preparing your food, and someone else delivering it? None of these people could be "safer at home". But the government didn't really care about them. We need our Amazon fix, gosh darn it! So they decided to give them a title to make them feel special. "Essential workers". Sounds great, until you realize that this was just a nifty title to give to people who were made to face the pandemic head-on every day while the "experts" stayed "safer at home".

 

[Say it aint so]

I did. You won't watch it.



I'm sure you do. I'm sure you're not at all concerned with their numerous conflicts of interest, and I'm sure you only believe that the epidemiologists that regurgitate the approved narrative are the best sources.

One more time: "If you have information showing where government was ""conducting well-coordinated propaganda campaign" of disinformation" given covid, then show it."

 

[probinson]

One more time: "If you have information showing where government was ""conducting well-coordinated propaganda campaign" of disinformation" given covid, then show it."

One more time: If you want to see examples of the government conducting well-coordinated propganda campaigns of disinformation, please feel free to watch the video I posted which demonstrates the propaganda campaign in spades.

Or I guess you can just keep pretending like no evidence has been posted. Your choice. But saying that no evidence has been presented is in and of itself (ironically) disinformation.

 

[rambot]

Let's look at just one example of a well-coordinated, government propaganda campaign that was blatant misinformation.

15 days to slow the spread.

The people that instated this policy KNEW that it would not work.

Really? Prove that. Never seen a link that was such a nonsequitor to a claim.

They KNEW that they would need more than 15 days. But they decided to lie to the entire country and suggest that if we all just stayed home from 15 days, everything would be fine. They KNEW that was not true. They KNEW they were lying.

Interesting. Could you source the soundbite where any health official says "after 15 days at home, everything would be fine"? I don't recall hearing that in CAnada....

None of the self-anointed "fact-checkers" ever addressed this. Birx said directly that she knew that 15 days would never be enough, yet they got up in front of the nation and lied to everyone, knowing their proposal would never work, and that they were just priming people to stay home for much, much longer.

Interesting. So Brix believes the shut down would have been more successful it had been long but...your argument is that there shouldn't have been a shut down at all. They were priming people to stay longer because they needed them to.

Sounds great, until you realize that this was just a nifty title to give to people who were made to face the pandemic head-on every day while the "experts" stayed "safer at home".

Wouldn't it be great if, after the pandemic, everyone realized the importance of people doing those jobs and would advocate HARD for those people to receive a living and appropriate wage.

 

[RDKirk]

It's surprising that many Americans value "free speech" but don't fully understand it or censorship. Facebook, as a private company, can moderate content, and government pressure on Facebook doesn't violate free speech. If social media platforms want to avoid government censorship, they could register as news media, which would prevent government interference under constitutional law. However, platforms like Facebook resist this because they would then be accountable for all published content.

If the Biden administration influenced what Facebook can or cannot post, it would not constitute censorship. Facebook does not have any legal protection from government regulation in this context. To obtain such protection, Facebook would need to register as a news media outlet.

You are incorrect about that.

Freedom of speech from governmental suppression or coercion is a Constitutional right of all American citizens,, including both individuals and (for better or worse) corporations. Facebook, as you said, is a private company and thus fully enjoys the right of free speech. Free speech is not some special Constitutional gift to the news media.

Zuckerberg folded to the pressure of the Biden administration for his own political and commercial reasons. He could have stood up to the Biden Administration in the same way Musk did. Trump brings no legal right that Zuckerberg and the rest of us don't already have.

 

[probinson]

Really? Prove that. Never seen a link that was such a nonsequitor to a claim.

In a chapter titled “Turning Fifteen into Thirty,” she writes, “No sooner had we convinced the Trump administration to implement our version of a two-week shutdown than I was trying to figure out how to extend it. Fifteen Days to Slow the Spread was a start, but I knew it would be just that. I didn’t have the numbers in front of me yet to make the case for extending it longer, but I had two weeks to get them.” That’s revealing in two ways. First, she planned for a much longer lockdown. Second, she knew what she wanted to find and she looked for data to make her case.​

​

https://www.cato.org/regulation/spring-2023/silent-invasion

​

​

Birx wrote in her book "Silent Invasion" that she KNEW that 15 days to slow the spread would not work. Yet she stood in front of the nation and said it would "flatten the curve" if we all just stayed home. It was intentional disinformation. At no point in the announcement for 15 days to slow the spread was there even a hint that this would need to be extended to a much longer lockdown.

Interesting. Could you source the soundbite where any health official says "after 15 days at home, everything would be fine"? I don't recall hearing that in CAnada....

The ostensible goal of "15 days to slow the spread" was to "flatten the curve". The people behind this foolhardy policy knew it would do no such thing.

Interesting. So Brix believes the shut down would have been more successful it had been long but...your argument is that there shouldn't have been a shut down at all. They were priming people to stay longer because they needed them to.

Except they didn't need them to stay home, and they knew that.

Here is what the UK said in their pandemic preparedness plan prior to COVID:

Here is what the WHO said about home quarantine of exposed individuals.

Here is what they said about contact tracing.

This is what Johns Hopkins had to say about the lack of evidence of efficacy of NPIs.

This is what the UK said about masks.

I have more if you'd like to see them.

As you can see, there was ample research on the ineffectiveness of NPIs and potential collateral damages that could result from implementing them. Yet governments around the world decided that they were going to literally ignore decades of research and pandemic preparedness in favor of untested lockdowns and masking.

Wouldn't it be great if, after the pandemic, everyone realized the importance of people doing those jobs and would advocate HARD for those people to receive a living and appropriate wage.

I'm sorry, but I have a very hard time believing that anyone that advocated for lockdowns gives a rat's behind about the importance of people doing those jobs. All they cared about was that their Amazon packages arrived on time and someone would bring them dinner each night. They apparently didn't stop to think how the pandemic would affect those people that had to go to work every day. No, they just kept up the virtue signaling of being "safer at home" while they expected those people doing those jobs to face the pandemic for them.

 

[rambot]

In a chapter titled “Turning Fifteen into Thirty,” she writes, “No sooner had we convinced the Trump administration to implement our version of a two-week shutdown than I was trying to figure out how to extend it. Fifteen Days to Slow the Spread was a start, but I knew it would be just that. I didn’t have the numbers in front of me yet to make the case for extending it longer, but I had two weeks to get them.” That’s revealing in two ways. First, she planned for a much longer lockdown. Second, she knew what she wanted to find and she looked for data to make her case.​

​

https://www.cato.org/regulation/spring-2023/silent-invasion

​

​

Birx wrote in her book "Silent Invasion" that she KNEW that 15 days to slow the spread would not work. Yet she stood in front of the nation and said it would "flatten the curve" if we all just stayed home. It was intentional disinformation. At no point in the announcement for 15 days to slow the spread was there even a hint that this would need to be extended to a much longer lockdown.



The ostensible goal of "15 days to slow the spread" was to "flatten the curve". The people behind this foolhardy policy knew it would do no such thing.



Except they didn't need them to stay home, and they knew that.

Oops. You epovide some interesting things to consider but don't fall foe thr "they" trap.

You can't bring UK reporting forward and say americna officials knew that if they were basing theiir decision on differwnt research.

also is there a cite for all these text boxes?

Here is what the UK said in their pandemic preparedness plan prior to COVID:

View attachment 359763

Here is what the WHO said about home quarantine of exposed individuals.

View attachment 359764

Here is what they said about contact tracing.

View attachment 359765

This is what Johns Hopkins had to say about the lack of evidence of efficacy of NPIs.

View attachment 359766

This is what the UK said about masks.

View attachment 359767

I have more if you'd like to see them.

I've seen evidence that contradicts that and it isn't that hard to wear a mask so why not.

I'm sorry, but I have a very hard time believing that anyone that advocated for lockdowns gives a rat's behind about the importance of people doing those jobs. All they cared about was that their Amazon packages arrived on time and someone would bring them dinner each night. They apparently didn't stop to think how the pandemic would affect those people that had to go to work every day. No, they just kept up the virtue signaling of being "safer at home" while they expected those people doing those jobs to face the pandemic for them.

I'll guarantee that those people sitting at home ordering from amazon cared a LOT more than the people who ignored government restrictions and went out to restaurants. Hospitality was one of the hardest hit industries by covid.
And there are stories of those people behaving antagonistically toward their servers (who didn't want to be there ein the first place)

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

You are incorrect about that.

Freedom of speech from governmental suppression or coercion is a Constitutional right of all American citizens,, including both individuals and (for better or worse) corporations. Facebook, as you said, is a private company and thus fully enjoys the right of free speech. Free speech is not some special Constitutional gift to the news media.

Zuckerberg folded to the pressure of the Biden administration for his own political and commercial reasons. He could have stood up to the Biden Administration in the same way Musk did. Trump brings no legal right that Zuckerberg and the rest of us don't already have.

I disagree. Business entities do not have the same free speech rights as private citizens.

In Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942), the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) declared that the First Amendment did not protect commercial speech. However, in Bigelow v. Virginia (1975), SCOTUS had a different perspective, recognizing that commercial speech is protected under the First Amendment but must not mislead the public. There are additional SCOTUS cases that indicate the uncertainty regarding whether businesses like Facebook should have full constitutional rights for free speech.

Over the last 70 years, there have been numerous cases before SCOTUS regarding commercial speech. Aside from the 1942 Valentine v. Chrestensen decision, which denied commercial speech constitutional protection, SCOTUS has generally taken a middle ground in other cases.

 

[probinson]

Oops. You epovide some interesting things to consider but don't fall foe thr "they" trap.

You can't bring UK reporting forward and say americna officials knew that if they were basing theiir decision on differwnt research.

Oh come on. You can't seriously pretend that because the evidence I presented was from the UK that the US health officials weren't aware of it. I also posted evidence from the WHO and Johns Hopkins. Curious that you excluded those.

None of that really matters. Birx said in her book that she knew at the time that 15 days would not be enough. She got up and lied, telling people it was just 15 days to slow the spread.

also is there a cite for all these text boxes?

If you search for pandemic preparedness plans, you can find them all. These are screen shots I took very early in the pandemic. I don't have the original links I clipped them from, but they were all from official government health authorities.

I've seen evidence that contradicts that and it isn't that hard to wear a mask so why not.

I call shenanigans. Here's what Cochrane says about masking.

Ten studies took place in the community, and two studies in healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask in the community studies only, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness/COVID-like illness (9 studies; 276,917 people); and probably makes little or no difference in how many people have flu/COVID confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 13,919 people). Unwanted effects were rarely reported; discomfort was mentioned.​

​

...​

​

Four studies were in healthcare workers, and one small study was in the community. Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (5 studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu-like illness (5 studies; 8407 people), or respiratory illness (3 studies; 7799 people). Unwanted effects were not well-reported; discomfort was mentioned.​

​

Do physical measures such as hand-washing or wearing masks stop or slow down the spread of respiratory viruses?

www.cochrane.org

​

​

It's worth noting that this review was first published on October 18, 2006 and was reviewed again on October 17, 2007, January 20, 2010, July 6, 2011, November 20, 2020 and this latest revision from January 30, 2023. For those of you keeping score at home, that's 16 years of evidence. No one questioned the conclusions from this review until 2020, when every "expert" on the planet suddenly pivoted into convincing the masses that masks made from their old T-shirts would protect them from respiratory viruses. Then, politics entered in, and suddenly flunkies at the New York Times were now accepted as "experts" instead of the people that had devoted more than a decade of thieir lives to studying the science and efficacy of masking.

So tell me, what "evidence" have you seen that "contradicts" this gold standard review?

I'll guarantee that those people sitting at home ordering from amazon cared a LOT more than the people who ignored government restrictions and went out to restaurants.

Let's walk though this virtue signal in detail.

People are going to stay at home because the government told them they are "safer at home". Clearly, this means that they feel it is NOT safe to be out and about.

These same people decide they need stuff from Amazon and take-out for dinner. So, they "care" about these people that must do these jobs by making them go out into what they have deemed to be an unsafe environment every day while they sit safely at home.

Then, the cognitive dissonance triggered by their fear and panic caused them to truly believe that they "cared" about these people that they made go out into that unsafe environment every day so that they could sit at home and order whatever they wanted. They made those people face the unsafe environment daily so they wouldn't have to, and yet somehow still managed to convince themselves that they cared about these "essential workers".

You'll never convince me that people who thought lockdowns were a good idea cared one whit about the "essential workers". They were simply pawns that they were willing to sacrifice to make their lockdowns sustainable. If EVERYONE had been locked down, there's no way those lockdowns could have lasted more than a day or two. Can you imagine if EVERYONE was told to stay "safer at home"? No stores were open, no gas stations, no trucks on the road, no deliveries of any kind, no hospitals open, no restaurants, no police, no firefighters, no ambulances.... because EVERYONE was safer at home? But that's not sustainable. So the lockdowners basically decided who they deemed "essential" (i.e. expendable) to keep society running while they cowered at home.

NO. These people dd not care AT ALL about those essential workers, other than to make sure they severed their purposes.

 

[RDKirk]

I disagree. Business entities do not have the same free speech rights as private citizens.

In Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942), the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) declared that the First Amendment did not protect commercial speech. However, in Bigelow v. Virginia (1975), SCOTUS had a different perspective, recognizing that commercial speech is protected under the First Amendment but must not mislead the public. There are additional SCOTUS cases that indicate the uncertainty regarding whether businesses like Facebook should have full constitutional rights for free speech.

Over the last 70 years, there have been numerous cases before SCOTUS regarding commercial speech. Aside from the 1942 Valentine v. Chrestensen decision, which denied commercial speech constitutional protection, SCOTUS has generally taken a middle ground in other cases.

The latest case is the one that counts. I would also point out that "commercial" does not mean what you apparently think it does.

All speech by a corporation is not "commercial" speech. "Commercial" speech is that which is intended to solicit further business. A corporation can also make public statements not intended to solicit further business, and in that respect it is fully protected by the First Amendment.