Should Facebook do more to stop anti Vaxers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone seek to limit free speech by people about their health? This sounds very undemocratic.

This isn't a democracy lmfao it's a website.

It is undemocratic to censor free speech on websites. There's a lawsuit going on about it.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/biden-administration-blocked-from-working-with-social-media-firms-about-protected-speech

That's about the federal government dictating content on platforms, not about a private individual's website. JFC.

Private ownership doesn't make it less undemocratic or weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t like the idea of Facebook censoring postings just because mainstream disagrees. Stick to removing posts about illegal activity or threats of violence.

Agreed.

Although I’m fine with removing stuff that is from misinformation farms.

But real individuals should be allowed their opinions, even bad ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone seek to limit free speech by people about their health? This sounds very undemocratic.

This isn't a democracy lmfao it's a website.

It is undemocratic to censor free speech on websites. There's a lawsuit going on about it.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/biden-administration-blocked-from-working-with-social-media-firms-about-protected-speech

That's about the federal government dictating content on platforms, not about a private individual's website. JFC.

Private ownership doesn't make it less undemocratic or weird.

Speaking of "weird," why do you think private ownership should be democratically run?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone seek to limit free speech by people about their health? This sounds very undemocratic.

This isn't a democracy lmfao it's a website.

It is undemocratic to censor free speech on websites. There's a lawsuit going on about it.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/biden-administration-blocked-from-working-with-social-media-firms-about-protected-speech

That's about the federal government dictating content on platforms, not about a private individual's website. JFC.

Private ownership doesn't make it less undemocratic or weird.

Speaking of "weird," why do you think private ownership should be democratically run?

You mean, why is it dangerous to censor public speech in the largest public forum in the world about something as important as Covid, or simply science? Gee I dunno.

As an aside, it's unscientific to silence discussion about science or scientific data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone seek to limit free speech by people about their health? This sounds very undemocratic.

This isn't a democracy lmfao it's a website.

It is undemocratic to censor free speech on websites. There's a lawsuit going on about it.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/biden-administration-blocked-from-working-with-social-media-firms-about-protected-speech

That's about the federal government dictating content on platforms, not about a private individual's website. JFC.

Private ownership doesn't make it less undemocratic or weird.

Speaking of "weird," why do you think private ownership should be democratically run?

You mean, why is it dangerous to censor public speech in the largest public forum in the world about something as important as Covid, or simply science? Gee I dunno.

As an aside, it's unscientific to silence discussion about science or scientific data.

What "largest public forum in the world" is a private individual's site, again?

[Anonymous]

Social media websites aren’t really “private” the way people are implying here. They enjoy legal protections that private websites don’t have precisely because they do not and cannot censor posts. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone seek to limit free speech by people about their health? This sounds very undemocratic.

This isn't a democracy lmfao it's a website.

It is undemocratic to censor free speech on websites. There's a lawsuit going on about it.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/biden-administration-blocked-from-working-with-social-media-firms-about-protected-speech

That's about the federal government dictating content on platforms, not about a private individual's website. JFC.

Isn’t it funny how people think the First Amendment protects them from censors on a private site? “It’s muh right as an amurican to say whatever I want.”

If Facebook enjoys protection as a public utility (and not as a publisher), then it should abide by the 1st Amendment. Oh, and government should not spend even one public dollar or employee hour on colluding with social media to shut down speech. Flagrantly unconstitutional...

[Anonymous]

They were right.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think blatantly false things should be allowed to be posted (or they should be taken down asap). Things that aren’t a matter of opinion, but are just made up/fake.
People can be anti-vax if they want, but they shouldn’t be making up lies and spreading misinformation. I report those but often nothing is done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think blatantly false things should be allowed to be posted (or they should be taken down asap). Things that aren’t a matter of opinion, but are just made up/fake.
People can be anti-vax if they want, but they shouldn’t be making up lies and spreading misinformation. I report those but often nothing is done.

And people should stop lying about the efficacy of masks:

https://x.com/theeliklein/status/1698154471375646857?s=57&t=zme1JR9_6BkhDYoIZpDEgw

[Anonymous]

Quite a few missing posts on this thread since I last viewed it. Interesting as there wasn’t anything against any rules.

Hmmm….

[Anonymous]

Yes. They do a lot of borderline unethical data collection. Wouldn’t be hard to implement basic monitoring of harmful misinformation campaigns directed at unsuspecting public.

[Anonymous]

The misinformation seems to be removing right wing conservatives from the gene pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Should Facebook should more to stop anti vaxers?
Every time I hear an anti vaxers speak they talk about how they read on Facebook…. Is Facebook doing enough to stop them? I never noticed any anti vax info on TikTok, that might be because they know that my cup of tea or what?

You seem to believe that anti- vaccines is a new thing. It’s not.

In the absence of social media there are websites a And before websites books.

People can choose what medical treatments they want to subject their body to.