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.”

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.

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

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.

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

+1

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

I just think that we now know that everyone having a voice is really not a good thing. The internet has turned out to be the equivalent of giving a toddler a Mr. Microphone. Sounded fun at the beginning, but in practice just a really really regretful error.

We should do more to stop social media from being an outrage machine for clicks and ad sales. It's entirely possible to have our cake (social media) and eat it too (not be manipulated into petty tribal divisions) if we would enact some common-sense regulations. I would pay a lot for social media that's just my friends' feeds showing up with no attempts to get me doom scrolling in the middle of the night due to my addicted, addled brain.

If people are that stupid, they get what they get.

Anonymous wrote:Meh. It's a free country. People can be idiots and blather on if they want.

agree, and free speech is a cornerstone of our democracy.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Meh. It's a free country. People can be idiots and blather on if they want.

Agreed.

Meh. It's a free country. People can be idiots and blather on if they want.

No... people should learn critical thinking.

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?