Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is, who decides what "mis information" is? It’s a slippery slope.

"Mis" information is factually incorrect. How is this hard?

Years ago it was a FACT that the world was flat, is it? It was a FACT that there was a sun god pulling the sun across the shy, is there?

You make the point that our best available understanding can change based on the newest information. But once we have the new information, and once the bad old information is disproven, it's no longer valid to keep clinging to the old info. The earth is not flat.

We still don't understand *exactly* how gravity works either, best available guess is Einstein's General Theory but that said we can still make reliable calculations based on our knowledge.

The PROBLEM is that flat-earther-type idiots, the anti-vaxxers, J6ers and others, in spite of better available info, cling to talking points that are just plain wrong and completely disproven and discredited. And while merely being stupid is not a crime, when your stupidity results in destruction or getting people killed, like the J6 attack on the US Capitol, or like the hundreds of thousands of COVID deaths that could have been avoided, then it's not just wrong and stupid, it's lethally and criminally dangerous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were told just a year ago that Covid vaccines prevent transmission. Anybody who doubted those claims was censored off of Twitter and Facebook. We now know that vaccines do not prevent transmission.

For the thousandths time, no one ever said they “prevent transmission”. That’s not what vaccines do. They prepare immune systems to respond so there are no symptoms or mild symptoms. The vaccines worked and prevented many, many deaths and hospitalizations.

Not according to Biden:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/dec/22/joe-biden/biden-says-vaccinated-people-cant-spread-covid-19-/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've never, as a society, gone around censoring people who were full of crap. We just accepted that people have a right to be wrong.

People don’t have the right to be shouting wrong things in the middle of your business if you don’t want them there.

That may not be true. For example, if you say that you dont want to bake cakes for gay weddings, that isnt allowed. There's no large social media platform owned by free speech advocates or conservatives, so there's no viable alternative, so they may meet the definition of a cartel.

Good luck with that amazing legal argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've never, as a society, gone around censoring people who were full of crap. We just accepted that people have a right to be wrong.

People don’t have the right to be shouting wrong things in the middle of your business if you don’t want them there.

That may not be true. For example, if you say that you dont want to bake cakes for gay weddings, that isnt allowed. There's no large social media platform owned by free speech advocates or conservatives, so there's no viable alternative, so they may meet the definition of a cartel.

Anonymous wrote:We've never, as a society, gone around censoring people who were full of crap. We just accepted that people have a right to be wrong.

Also, learn some history, this has definitely happened.

Anonymous wrote:We were told just a year ago that Covid vaccines prevent transmission. Anybody who doubted those claims was censored off of Twitter and Facebook. We now know that vaccines do not prevent transmission.

For the thousandths time, no one ever said they “prevent transmission”. That’s not what vaccines do. They prepare immune systems to respond so there are no symptoms or mild symptoms. The vaccines worked and prevented many, many deaths and hospitalizations.

Anonymous wrote:We've never, as a society, gone around censoring people who were full of crap. We just accepted that people have a right to be wrong.

People don’t have the right to be shouting wrong things in the middle of your business if you don’t want them there.

We've never, as a society, gone around censoring people who were full of crap. We just accepted that people have a right to be wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is, who decides what "mis information" is? It’s a slippery slope.

"Mis" information is factually incorrect. How is this hard?

Years ago it was a FACT that the world was flat, is it? It was a FACT that there was a sun god pulling the sun across the shy, is there?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is, who decides what "mis information" is? It’s a slippery slope.

"Mis" information is factually incorrect. How is this hard?

Like Hunter's laptop.

Keep running with that.

After Javanka, I'm not worrying about stuff like that. Now if Hunter get's hired in...

The laptop was considered fake new and disallowed by Twitter. It’s a perfect example

You have to be a *lot* more specific. The mere fact of the laptop is not fake. But what *specifically* about it is the issue? The main problem with the laptop is that it passed around between many different sets of hands before ending up in the news headlines and there's been nothing reliable to say what content on the laptop is actually genuine and credible versus anything that might have been planted or altered on it. And given it passed around the chain of custody problem will come up in a court if someone tries to use it as evidence.

Is your position that the NYT is a trash tabloid that publishes poorly sourced rumors? And that the editors at Twitter are better positioned to fact check?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is, who decides what "mis information" is? It’s a slippery slope.

Facts decide.

People have been banned from Twitter for saying that men cannot change their sex to become women. Yet rape and death threats are allowed.

Nope, people get banned from twitter for threats of rape or death threats. I should know, I've reported posters who made threats and saw them get banned.

Not all. Some get banned, but others don’t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is, who decides what "mis information" is? It’s a slippery slope.

Facts decide.

People have been banned from Twitter for saying that men cannot change their sex to become women. Yet rape and death threats are allowed.

Nope, people get banned from twitter for threats of rape or death threats. I should know, I've reported posters who made threats and saw them get banned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is, who decides what "mis information" is? It’s a slippery slope.

"Mis" information is factually incorrect. How is this hard?

Like Hunter's laptop.

Keep running with that.

After Javanka, I'm not worrying about stuff like that. Now if Hunter get's hired in...

The laptop was considered fake new and disallowed by Twitter. It’s a perfect example

You have to be a *lot* more specific. The mere fact of the laptop is not fake. But what *specifically* about it is the issue? The main problem with the laptop is that it passed around between many different sets of hands before ending up in the news headlines and there's been nothing reliable to say what content on the laptop is actually genuine and credible versus anything that might have been planted or altered on it. And given it passed around the chain of custody problem will come up in a court if someone tries to use it as evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is, who decides what "mis information" is? It’s a slippery slope.

Facts decide.

People have been banned from Twitter for saying that men cannot change their sex to become women. Yet rape and death threats are allowed.

We were told just a year ago that Covid vaccines prevent transmission. Anybody who doubted those claims was censored off of Twitter and Facebook. We now know that vaccines do not prevent transmission.