U.S. House Judiciary Committee Subpoenas Apple for Info on Alleged Free Speech Suppression

[Vref]

So you're for government censorship and government-compelled speech, but not for private control of their own property. Seems like the opposite values of the rest of your shtick.

You should re read what I wrote, a swing and a miss

That’s 100% not what I said

 

[BaldiMac]

You should re read what I wrote, a swing and a miss

That’s 100% not what I said

I disagree. I simply paraphrased what you said.

Only illegal content should be moderated = only governments should censor content
Private property should be treated as public town square = socialism
If you don't publish speech you don't want to, you lose section 230 = government-compelled speech

 

[Vref]

I disagree. I simply paraphrased what you said.

Only illegal content should be moderated = only governments should censor content
Private property should be treated as public town square = socialism
If you don't publish speech you don't want to, you lose section 230 = government-compelled speech

Striiiiike 2 😂

Ok, I’ll break it down

If someone says on a medium “at 3pm tomorrow I’m going to kill so and so”
I’d say that warrants a call to the police, after all that’s kinda the point of why we [over]pay them

It’s your private website, yup
But you want legal immunity from anything others post on it, so the deal is it’s a public square and posters can say what they want without you editing and censoring their posts, NO ONE FORCED you to accept sec 230 protections, it was a choice you made

If I want to get away from paying property taxes I could turn my home into a non profit church, however there are some draw backs, like when I go to sell it and some other things

So they had a choice, be a publisher and be legally responsible for anything posted on their private site, but be able to censor/edit the content to their creepy little hearts desire
OR
Be a town square, people can say what they want, but you don’t get to “mold the story”

 

[BaldiMac]

Striiiiike 2 😂

Ok, I’ll break it down

If someone says on a medium “at 3pm tomorrow I’m going to kill so and so”
I’d say that warrants a call to the police, after all that’s kinda the point of why we [over]pay them

It’s your private website, yup
But you want legal immunity from anything others post on it, so the deal is it’s a public square and posters can say what they want without you editing and censoring their posts, NO ONE FORCED you to accept sec 230 protections, it was a choice you made

If I want to get away from paying property taxes I could turn my home into a non profit church, however there are some draw backs, like when I go to sell it and some other things

So they had a choice, be a publisher and be legally responsible for anything posted on their private site, but be able to censor/edit the content to their creepy little hearts desire
OR
Be a town square, people can say what they want, but you don’t get to “mold the story”

You just said the same thing with more words. Doesn't change any of my points. I stand by my description.

 

[Vref]

You just said the same thing with more words. Doesn't change any of my points. I stand by my description.

You’re points were not valid 🤷‍♂️

 

[BaldiMac]

You’re points were not valid 🤷‍♂️

I certainly understand that is your opinion. But you didn't actually rebut any of my points. You simply restated your original position.

Why do you believe that governments should have the right to censor private networks, but not the owners?
Why do you believe that section 230 should socialize private networks?
Why do you believe the government should be able to use section 230 to force private companies to publish government propaganda?

 

[PrecisionGem]

Ah isn’t freedom of speech lovely. No one will put you in jail no matter how ludicrous a statement you make.

But ok. I’ll bite. It’s true. Many countries did far better than the US in terms of death rates. And they did so without ivermectin or drinking bleach. They did so by taking the vaccine and practicing social distancing instead of arranging big motorcycle or BLM rallies and other super spreader events.

The votes are still out on Ivermectin. But the vaccine clearly bought us the time it took for coronavirus to mutate into something more contagious that only attacks the upper respiratory system isn’t of turning your lungs into stone.

I don't recall anyone saying you should drink bleach. Could you site the exact quote where that was said and by who?

As far as my statement you seem to think is ludicrous. What part is ludicrous?

The reality is social distancing of 6 feet is ludicrous and proven to be wrong. The vaccine is proven to not stop covid and not stop the spread of covid. The spread outdoors has been shown to be many time less than indoors. So really outdoor events are not super spreader events.

 

[BaldiMac]

I don't recall anyone saying you should drink bleach. Could you site the exact quote where that was said and by who?

It wasn't an exact quote. It was a turn of phrase to mock of the following comment from 45.

"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning..."

But you already knew that.

 

[ninecows]

If someone is saying something illegal call 911

Otherwise if it’s a town square you let them post whatever

Or let go of your section 230 protections and just be a publisher/editor

Define illegal? As long as it’s just words it can’t really be that illegal can it? It’s only if the words become actions, right?

But you’re (deliberately?) missing the point: even if Facebook really, really wanted to, they couldn’t both have their product AND just be a publisher/editor with full control over everything posted. Let’s be realistic and pragmatically here. They are in fact trying to live up to the responsibility of an editor, but it’s just not physically possible to ensure it 100%, since they would have to check 1 billion posts per day.

Btw. That section 230 is from 1996 when the internet was in its infancy. Don’t expect it to cover today’s situation perfectly.

Just because Facebooks editorial preferences doesn’t go well with you and project veritas’ agenda doesn’t mean that your freedom of speech is at risk. You just go somewhere else.

 

[PrecisionGem]

Ok so you're talking about Trump. So he asked the doctors if there is a way to inject some "almost a cleaning" agent, I don't think he said "Bleach". He also asked about using UV light. This is something that doctors have been using for many years. There are a few procedures, one involves a UV light being injected into a vein, and as the blood passes by it it cleansed, much like people with well water use UV light to cleans the water. Another method is a UV light is placed under the tongue where the blood comes very close to the surface. So Trump didn't invent this, it's been used for some time in the medical field. I was surprised at the time to Fauci didn't speak up and inform Trump that this already exited, but I think he wanted to let it hang out there sot that people like you who are not educated on these things could us it to mock Trump.

As far as injecting "an almost a cleaning" agent, this too is done in the medical field all the time through an IV drip. Trump isn't a doctor, so he is not aware of these things, but again, I'm sure Fauci is, if not, he is a pretty piss for excuse for a doctor.

 

[Vref]

Define illegal? As long as it’s just words it can’t really be that illegal can it? It’s only if the words become actions, right?

But you’re (deliberately?) missing the point: even if Facebook really, really wanted to, they couldn’t both have their product AND just be a publisher/editor with full control over everything posted. Let’s be realistic and pragmatically here. They are in fact trying to live up to the responsibility of an editor, but it’s just not physically possible to ensure it 100%, since they would have to check 1 billion posts per day.

Btw. That section 230 is from 1996 when the internet was in its infancy. Don’t expect it to cover today’s situation perfectly.

Just because Facebooks editorial preferences doesn’t go well with you and project veritas’ agenda doesn’t mean that your freedom of speech is at risk. You just go somewhere else.

If they are acting as a editor they shouldn’t have had 230 in the first place

And it’s clear when it’s call 911 territory, a clear call to violence, also if someone isn’t willing to risk a criminal charge for reporting a false crime to 911, it’s not worth reporting in the first place

 

[Vref]

I certainly understand that is your opinion. But you didn't actually rebut any of my points. You simply restated your original position.

Why do you believe that governments should have the right to censor private networks, but not the owners?
Why do you believe that section 230 should socialize private networks?
Why do you believe the government should be able to use section 230 to force private companies to publish government propaganda?

Section 230 is being a public square, all ideas are fair game, if the gov wants to do some of their half baked attempts at propaganda fine, but all the citizens who are normally much smarter can also use that same platform to make them look stupid

Again, no one forced these tech bros to take those 230 protections, but if you want to take the 230 protections you need to follow the 230 rules, otherwise just be a publisher

 

[ninecows]

I don't recall anyone saying you should drink bleach. Could you site the exact quote where that was said and by who?

As far as my statement you seem to think is ludicrous. What part is ludicrous?

The reality is social distancing of 6 feet is ludicrous and proven to be wrong. The vaccine is proven to not stop covid and not stop the spread of covid. The spread outdoors has been shown to be many time less than indoors. So really outdoor events are not super spreader events.

No… I was wrong. It should be injected instead. My bad. Here it is in its full beauty:

And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful

 

[BaldiMac]

Ok so you're talking about Trump.

I'm not speaking for the person you originally replied to.

So he asked the doctors if there is a way to inject some "almost a cleaning" agent, I don't think he said "Bleach". He also asked about using UV light. This is something that doctors have been using for many years. There are a few procedures, one involves a UV light being injected into a vein, and as the blood passes by it it cleansed, much like people with well water use UV light to cleans the water. Another method is a UV light is placed under the tongue where the blood comes very close to the surface. So Trump didn't invent this, it's been used for some time in the medical field. I was surprised at the time to Fauci didn't speak up and inform Trump that this already exited, but I think he wanted to let it hang out there sot that people like you who are not educated on these things could us it to mock Trump.

As far as injecting "an almost a cleaning" agent, this too is done in the medical field all the time through an IV drip. Trump isn't a doctor, so he is not aware of these things, but again, I'm sure Fauci is, if not, he is a pretty piss for excuse for a doctor.

Weird how you made up a quote after I gave you the exact quote that I was referring to.

 

[BaldiMac]

Section 230 is being a public square, all ideas are fair game, if the gov wants to do some of their half baked attempts at propaganda fine, but all the citizens who are normally much smarter can also use that same platform to make them look stupid

Again, no one forced these tech bros to take those 230 protections, but if you want to take the 230 protections you need to follow the 230 rules, otherwise just be a publisher

Yes. I completely understand that you want the government to use section 230 to socialize private networks. Thus allowing the government to force these socialized networks to carry government propanda while maintaining the right to censor whatever it deems "illegal".

You don't need to repeat it again. I just think that position is inconsistent with the rest of your schtick on this forum. You're usually against government infringement of our rights.

 

[Vref]

Yes. I completely understand that you want the government to use section 230 to socialize private networks. Thus allowing the government to force these socialized networks to carry government propanda while maintaining the right to censor whatever it deems "illegal".

You don't need to repeat it again. I just think that position is inconsistent with the rest of your schtick on this forum. You're usually against government infringement of our rights.

Nope

I don’t want to gov to force anyone to be a public square, it a decision the tech bros have to make for themselves

We all make decisions and weigh the cost v benefit, I’m all for less government, dramatically less, but this isn’t that, it’s a here are the categories your website can fall into, pick one, they do, they enjoy it, then they break the rules they agreed to

 

[PrecisionGem]

No… I was wrong. It should be injected instead. My bad. Here it is in its full beauty:

Ok, so where is the part where Trump was telling people to inject themselves? It seems he was posing this as a question to the medical people..."is there a way we can do something like that" sounds like a question. But people on the left like to spin this that Trump told people to drink bleach and inject sunlight in their veins. Then laugh at how stupid he is. The reality is UV light and IV therapy has been used for a long time in the medical field.

 

[BaldiMac]

Nope

I don’t want to gov to force anyone to be a public square, it a decision the tech bros have to make for themselves

That's not what you said. Section 230 doesn't currently force them to be a public square. Under current laws, they are still private networks that can decide on which speech they distribute and promote. You're arguing that the government should change that by socializing platforms into public squares, but public squares where the government can censor and compel speech.

We all make decisions and weigh the cost v benefit, I’m all for less government, dramatically less, but this isn’t that, it’s a here are the categories your website can fall into, pick one, they do, they enjoy it, then they break the rules they agreed to

That's my point, you claim to be for less government, but support the government using laws to compel speech. That's where I find your position to be inconsistent and a direct violation of the first amendment.

 

[ninecows]

I don't recall anyone saying you should drink bleach. Could you site the exact quote where that was said and by who?

As far as my statement you seem to think is ludicrous. What part is ludicrous?

The reality is social distancing of 6 feet is ludicrous and proven to be wrong. The vaccine is proven to not stop covid and not stop the spread of covid. The spread outdoors has been shown to be many time less than indoors. So really outdoor events are not super spreader events.

Can we agree that it’s transmissible by air and droplets?

Then all other things being equal social distancing works. That’s just common sense. Obviously outdoor events are much safer than indoor. But shouting and yelling and being close outdoor when you could have stayed at home is increasing spread. Does masks help? Should it be 6 or 8 feet distance? 5 or 15 minutes? Who knows. With all the factors at play it’s impossible to quantify.

So we learned that just like with the flu and common cold keeping a vaccine up-to-scratch with the latest strain is not easy. But we also learned being vaccinated reduces the risk of death significantly.

I could present you with numbers on this, but it seems to me like you have your mind fixed already so I don’t see the point.

What I find ludicrous is that you put science in quotes like it’s some evil/useless concept just pretending to search for the truth, while you’re making claims about the wonders of Ivermectin without really backing it up. The RCT I have seen on Ivermectin vs Covid points in all directions. And oddly enough many of those showing a positive effect were later shown to be either deliberately flawed or just done extremely poorly.

 

[ninecows]

Ok, so where is the part where Trump was telling people to inject themselves? It seems he was posing this as a question to the medical people..."is there a way we can do something like that" sounds like a question. But people on the left like to spin this that Trump told people to drink bleach and inject sunlight in their veins. Then laugh at how stupid he is. The reality is UV light and IV therapy has been used for a long time in the medical field.

It is pretty clear to me that he knows his audience and what stupidity some of them are capable of. So if he cared about anything else than his own ego or had any sort of respect for eg scientist and doctors he would not be making suggestions like that.

 

[ninecows]

Here’s a overview, think he’s got links to the leaked documents

Senator Johnson Demands Answers from DoD on Disclosure About COVID-19 Origins and Early Treatment

www.ronjohnson.senate.gov

Otherwise just search covid project defuse

I don’t see the links to anything else than stuff that literally has “project veritas” written on it. Not the most reliable source of information as they tend to start out with an agenda and then cherry picks whatever they can find to push that.

 

[PrecisionGem]

Can we agree that it’s transmissible by air and droplets?

Then all other things being equal social distancing works. That’s just common sense. Obviously outdoor events are much safer than indoor. But shouting and yelling and being close outdoor when you could have stayed at home is increasing spread. Does masks help? Should it be 6 or 8 feet distance? 5 or 15 minutes? Who knows. With all the factors at play it’s impossible to quantify.

So we learned that just like with the flu and common cold keeping a vaccine up-to-scratch with the latest strain is not easy. But we also learned being vaccinated reduces the risk of death significantly.

I could present you with numbers on this, but it seems to me like you have your mind fixed already so I don’t see the point.

What I find ludicrous is that you put science in quotes like it’s some evil/useless concept just pretending to search for the truth, while you’re making claims about the wonders of Ivermectin without really backing it up. The RCT I have seen on Ivermectin vs Covid points in all directions. And oddly enough many of those showing a positive effect were later shown to be either deliberately flawed or just done extremely poorly.

Since you are current on everything, I'm sure you know that most people currently hospitalized with Covid are vaccinated. You also know that the vaccine has killed people and caused significant harm to thousands. A friend of mine, after her second shot developed blood clots and actually died.

Healthy people under 80 years old had almost no risk of death. Healthy children have basically zero risk of death from covid. But you keep getting your boosters as I do have some stock in Pfizer.

 

[ninecows]

I could care less what a politician said

And ivermectin won the Nobel peace prize
“In 2015, the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine, in its only award for treatments of infectious diseases since six decades prior, honoured the discovery of ivermectin (IVM), a multifaceted drug deployed against some of the world's most devastating tropical diseases.”

But seeing darpa knew about covid back when we were paying to modify it and make it transmissible to humans while increasing its virulence, that same darpa said ivermectin was a great tool to combat it, well that’s saying quite a bit

Now if you were to mention DARPA and their pre “pandemic” findings on ivermectin having great results at fighting covid on any of the big websites it would get it censored and you’d get banned, but saying the big pharma shots would make it so you wouldn’t catch it, couldn’t spread it, or that there were no side effects (all VERY false), that was A OK

Censorship is always always a bad idea, good ideas can withstand debate, it’s the BS and scams that are afraid of the light

And if all of this was true, why doesn’t IVM work much better?

And from the article that you’re quoting the authors have this beautiful example of how you can really mix up correlation and causation 😂

All countries being hit by the pandemic can present a chart like that, but without IVM involved. That just the nature of virus - they come in waves.

 

[ninecows]

Since you are current on everything, I'm sure you know that most people currently hospitalized with Covid are vaccinated. You also know that the vaccine has killed people and caused significant harm to thousands. A friend of mine, after her second shot developed blood clots and actually died.

Healthy people under 80 years old had almost no risk of death. Healthy children have basically zero risk of death from covid. But you keep getting your boosters as I do have some stock in Pfizer.

OMG. I don’t think I want to bother giving you a basic math lesson as well.

You got one point for the fact that healthy children have basically zero risk of dying from Covid.

And for reminding me about not making friends with anti-vaxx people because friends of anti-vaxx people always dies from vaccines.

The chart presented by the IVM selling doctors actually proves that social distancing works. Let’s see if you can spot it.

 

[Vref]

That's not what you said. Section 230 doesn't currently force them to be a public square. Under current laws, they are still private networks that can decide on which speech they distribute and promote. You're arguing that the government should change that by socializing platforms into public squares, but public squares where the government can censor and compel speech.


That's my point, you claim to be for less government, but support the government using laws to compel speech. That's where I find your position to be inconsistent and a direct violation of the first amendment.

They are not really falling under 230

Under 230 as it’s written they need to allow anyone to say anything, no speech is compelled, gov can spout their BS and others can point out all the flaws in it just the same