A federal judge yesterday ordered the Biden administration to halt a wide range of communications with social media companies, siding with Missouri and Louisiana in a lawsuit that alleges Biden and his administration violated the First Amendment by colluding with social networks "to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content."
This is about attempts to stop folks from spreading provably wrong info online that's killing people. It's like protecting the free speech of someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
The headline is also overstated. Its a preliminary injunction and of course its from a Trump nominee.
But Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump nominee at US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction imposing limits on the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
But if the government can pressure platforms to remove provably false information that is actively killing people, it will have a chilling effect on my constitutional freedom to lie to people. Won't somebody please think of the grifters and anti-sciencers?
In a land where "lies" are suppressed, he who claims to know the truth is king. The sentiment of suppressing lies is perhaps rightous, but who determines the truth? It damn well wasn't scientists during the pandemic.
Edit: hell, even Zuck himself said he was told to censor true information.
If you actually listened to scientists during the pandemic, or read papers - you would you know that the main theme was "there is lots of stuff we don't know, or are unsure about". Given that, however - there needed to be public health guidance based on the best evidence and probablitlities at the time.
On the other side, there were people spouting, unsourced, unsupported, nonsensical bullshit that would directly contribute to people killing themselves.
They were literally just making up arbitrary rules that had nothing to do with science, and saying it WAS based on science. Meanwhile the then director of the CDC said we should investigate if the virus came from a lab as well as if it had a natural origin, and was forcibly sidelined as a result. Don't even try to say they were following the science.
Edit: Also, if you're not even sure what the truth is, what gives you the right to silence people that have a different opinion? It makes no sense. Where is the authority to silence coming from?
They were literally just making up arbitrary rules that had nothing to do with science, and saying it WAS based on science.
Give me a solid example of the "they" in this case, the rule in question and the date that that the rule was imposed.
Meanwhile the then director of the CDC said we should investigate if the virus came from a lab as well as if it had a natural origin, and was forced to resign as a result.
Are you talking about Rochelle Walensky? If so, there are many possible reasons why she decided to resign, but I can't find a single source saying it was because she said there should be an investigation into Covid's source.
Edit: Ah, you are talking about Robert R. Redfield. So from what I can tell, his downfall was that he wasn't being scientific - he stated that the he thought it most likely that it was a lab-leak, and that certainly didn't win him any friends because the assertions he made weren't well supported. But was he "forced to resign because of that" - looking at the coverage from back then, he was under fire for multiple reasons, not just that. I don't think we can say that was the sole or even main reason for his departure.
Also, if you're not even sure what the truth is, what gives you the right to silence people that have a different opinion? It makes no sense. Where is the authority to silence coming from?
Because the process of science (especially in fast-moving situations) is all about producing increasingly accurate pictures of the truth. Scientists are highly resistant to characterising something as the truth - there often more to explore. You can absolutely have scientists with different opinions - but they will be looking at evidence, not just making stuff up.
You ask
What gives you the right to silence people that have a different opinion? It makes no sense. Where is the authority to silence coming from?
The silencing isn't being done by scientists, its being done by public health officials and that is somewhat different,. Public health officials take the best evidence as presented by scientific consensus and have to create messaging designed to minimise the number of deaths and maximise wellbeing. If the scientific consensus is that vaccination is safe and effective - that messaging will save millions of lives. Some Russian bot factory amplying a ludicrous idea like "the vaccines will alter your DNA or make you infertile" is specifically designed to kill people.
I wholeheartedly disagree, and that's okay. What I think we CAN agree on is that leading experts (like the director of the CDC) shouldn't be silenced for suggesting we investigate the possibility of a lab leak, which is actually what happened.
So if any one wants, I’m running a sale on Inverpectin.
For the low price of 69.69, you could get a months supply- but wait, there’s more. If you order in the next 30 seconds, I’ll give you a second months supply free- up to six months when you buy six! That’s a years worth of protection from Covick!
(Please note the evil FDA and CDC are saying inverpectin doesn’t do what I say it does, and is insisting Inveepeftin caused man-boob development. It’s all lied! I swear!)
Almost all those things haven't been proven true or accepted by most experts. Stop lying.
Asking questions is fine to inform yourself. Asking questions to purposely push a narrative isn't
I don’t trust you that the video contains the content you claim it does. apparently you have this information, but are refusing to share it with people, so how lazy are you?
He details around the 1:10 minute mark about how he was sidelined (which I incorrectly interpreted to mean he had been forced to resign) for suggesting that both lab leak and natural origin theories should be investigated. Apparently he was simply left out of the discussion entirely after sharing his position, and resigned later, but I haven't actually been able to find any details or the exact reasoning behind his exit from the CDC.
That being said, him being sidelined is, in my opinion, still extremely concerning. It's pretty clear to me that him disagreeing with Fauci lead to him being pushed out, but there doesn't seem to be any info anywhere on the subject.
(which I incorrectly interpreted to mean he had been forced to resign)
You do realize that’s why most people are arguing with you, right? Because you made a false claim that you couldn’t back up while repeatedly claiming you've proven it to be true by posting a link to an article that doesn’t say what you claim it says (which is the very definition of “unscientific”)?
My main point was that the Whitehouse shouldn't be allowed to censor people (via the FBI) by calling certain information "misinformation" (especially when they had little to no evidence to support their own narrative) by forcing social media platforms to carry out said cencorship (or really in any way in all honesty).
The current administration came up with a narrative, and stifled any and all debate, including that of the then CDC director who they subsequently sidelined simply for saying we should investigate both possibilities on the origins of the virus.
And you’re still wrong! There is no evidence that the government forced social media companies to do anything, and the article you provided doesn’t even make the claim that anyone was forced to do anything.
I didn't say that article claimed that. This information is already known, and it's why there is a case in the first place. The Twitter files came out and corroborated that it had been going on for quite a while.
Who gives a shit, frankly. The first amendment is the first amendment, science or anti-science or anything in between. Whether or not I agree with anything in your comment.
Sorry I didn't flesh it out.. Falsely yelling "fire" is not inherently illegal unless someone gets injured as a result. Millions of people died due to vaccine misinformation spread on social media.
But the speech is still legal and protected. Maybe there should be more restrictions about these things, but that’s a case that should be argued in public and implemented the official way. Personally I think not, and instead we should be focusing on restricting the things that allow those ridiculous people making false claims to find the other ridiculous people that believe them.
Just imagine what Trump could have done during the worst of COVID with the power to restrict speech deemed untrue in the dark and without oversight.
This is extremely good news for foreign state-run disinformation farms, or domestic terrorists who want to spread disinformation or panic. "Go for it".
Do you extend the same to lies or threats? If I claimed your computer is full of CP would you still support me?
I personally think this is a brain-dead approach akin to the many “zero tolerance” laws that only exist to remove thought from the equation. “Yes Billy, you may not have actually thrown any punches but we’re suspending you from school for getting beat up by that bully because you were a participant in the fight.”
The first amendment is the first amendment, science or anti-science or anything in between. Whether or not I agree with anything in your comment.
What else is there to take from this? Sounds like the typical “unlimited free speech” argument that we’ve all heard before.
If you want to argue about the law, the legality of this action has yet to be determined, so I’m assuming you must be in support of it, no? What is your stance if you think there’s confusion on my part about what that may be.
Lies and threats may be illegal but they violate the idea of free speech, so why do you support these restrictions on the first amendment and not others?
Lies and threats may be illegal but they violate the idea of free speech, so why do you support these restrictions on the first amendment and not others?
Because they’re laws the we have as a society agreed upon and put into place. Pretty simple stuff. I do not understand how thinking that the law should be followed is such a wild idea.
If we want vaccine misinformation to be illegal, we should pass a law. Otherwise, the first amendment stands. What’s so weird about that?
Nobody is "begrudgingly" accepting scientific results. But you want to tell that story, right? You're looking for an "us vs. them" situation, but that's not how science works.
Also, I think some of your facts are not actually facts.
Finally, a question itself is not "anti-science". How could it be? However, if you're using a question as a smokescreen to confuse readers or viewers to push your selfish political agenda, that would be shady politics, and it would have nothing to do with science at all.
What simple disagreement are you referring to exactly? Everything you’ve mentioned has been pretty clear disinformation that lead to people dying not simple disagreements.
Yeah okay, bud. You’re obviously trying to spread your own disinformation now as if we can’t see a written record of your comments elsewhere in this post.
I just want to point out that your very first question is irrelevant to the rest. Whereever it originated, we needed to stop the spread but propagandists got hold of people through paranoia and pushed them to behave in ways that INCREASED the spread, and it started with stuff like the first question.
Exactly! We're just asking questions! Like how many shots does it take to induce fetal-alcohol syndrom? Because your mom DEFINITELY knows the answer. And when will these WOKE folks (hehe, rhyme time) stop being so persistant with their knowledge and science and let us just say the stupid shit we think of on the spot? Also, why are you allowed to speak if there is a god? The world may never know, but penis. (( | )) B:::::::::D---~~~ (GET IT? BUTT PENIS!) i'M jUsT aSkInG QuEsTiOnS!
Was it antiscience to say covid originated in a lab in China?
Yes. It would be accurate to say that it is possible that the Covid originated in a lab in China, but the evidence is mixed and it is certainly not provided.
Was it antiscience to say 2 weeks to flatten the curve was BS?
No idea, because I don't know who you claimed to say it, when they said it or in which county
Was it antiscience to say cloth masks were ineffective?
Yes - because it's much too simplistic. Depending on the design of the mask, the material and how it was warn cloth masks certainly had an effect on reducing infection - in particular infected mask wearers are less likely to infect others
Was it antiscience to question the long term efficacy of a drug that was not studied for the long term?
No - and questions about long-term efficacy were front and centre of studies into how long (for example) vaccines shots lasted. The point was that even short - term efficacy was pretty useful.
Was it antiscience to question the long term side effects of a drug that was not studied for the long term?
No. It's absolutely scientific to ask questions about it. It is is anti-science tio make stuff up about probable long-term effects when the mechanism of the drug are pretty well understood.
At one point or another every one of those questions was considered antiscience and is now begrudgingly accepted by the experts.
Some of them are "anti-science", some aren't. I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make, other than "Experts bad"
That was the data we had at the time, yes. New data can mean new stances, and that's okay. But notice the order of operations there; new data, then new stance. Not the other way around.
They had data showing otherwise. They were silenced. I'll keep bringing this up, but the director of the CDC at the time said there was significant evidence to investigate the lab leak theory, but was forcibly sidelined. They seem to have gotten your model backwards. This wasn't the only time it happened, but people will keep crying "sources" since they know it's now difficult to find information that was removed from journal sites, etc.
"Dr Redfield, who led the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention when the outbreak began in 2020, was an early proponent of the lab leak theory.
He told the House select subcommittee, formed by the new Republican majority in the US House of Representatives, it was "not scientifically plausible" to him that the virus had natural origins.
He claimed he was "sidelined" at the beginning of the pandemic and excluded from meetings as his views were not in line with other major scientists like Dr Fauci, the de-facto face of the US pandemic response."
There is no evidence to support your stance that this dude was sidelined because of his views. All you have is his claim that they sidelined him for his views.
If you're going to speak to me that way I will not be responding. You've refused to read the story yourself, and cannot be swayed from your opinion. You argue in bad faith, and simply aren't following logic with your responses. I hope you have a good day.
Have a good one friend. "It's easier to mislead someone than it is to show them they've been mislead." If you really believe the director of the CDC was a crackpot conspiracy theorist, then we have no further discussion.
You couldn't know they didn't have data if they didn't have the ability to present it. Once censored, it's impossible to tell what media is, that's the point of censorship.
You can't know if what was censored was false information, if you don't have the data on what was said.
Questioning is the heart and soul of science. Doubting included.
To censor doubt is a demand for agreement, and an intimidation of dissent.
People posting pro horse-medicine posts on social media aren't ever going to be doing anything close to "science".
And this romantic concept of "questioning is the heart and soul of science" is just a banal platitude. Rigorous testing and record keeping is the heart and soul of science. Latching on to conspiracy theories is not even tangentially related to science.
You've got to do your homework. This has already been proven to be a false narrative set up by MSNBC and CNN (and their subsidiaries). You're behind. Ivermectin has been prescribed to humans for decades.
But not for coronaviruses. For parasites. And not in the doses that are intended for animals, but for humans. And not purchased from a farm supply store, but through a pharmacy.
That's not what I said though. They spread a lie by saying it was only for horses, and were never silenced or corrected. They were allowed to lie. "Rules for thee, but not rules for me."
I'd like a verified source showing this was actually occurring at any sort of large scale. Assuming you have it, does that make it okay to suggest Ivermectin (the drug) is only for horses like the media did? Is lying okay when it's done to save lives? I'm just curious.
That story uses only anecdotal, non-scientifically recorded data. 50 - 60 calls a day simply to ask about it, and one or two cases of people actually using it. This same story claims people were drinking hand sanitizer, I guess we need to start lying about that as well.
"Poison centers are still responding to events related to COVID-19," said Julie Weber, president of the American Association of Poison Control Centers and director of the Missouri Poison Center. "On average, we are getting over 40 to 50 calls per day in addition to what we would normally get pre-pandemic."
Unless you are saying the president of Missouri's Poison Center is lying, then this is still substantive.
And more than what you have provided so far. Can't claim it is lie either without evidence.
They don't even say the 50-60 calls they are getting are just for Ivermectin, just that they're related to COVID. Why do you think they worded it that way, to be misleading maybe?
I'll not be discussing with you further. Why would I? You are literally just repeating that I didn't read the article, and have made no claims against what I said. I think we should censor YOU since I know I read it but you keep claiming I didn't, which could be classified as misinformation.
Firstly, you saying I'm admitting that I'm wrong is arguing in bad faith by definition, as I never said that. Quote the part of the article you're talking about specifically, and I'll refute that, that way I'll be forced to read it. Also, ciritizing me for repeating myself is ironic considering you keep repeating yourself.
You suspiciously left out all the context of the discussion. I can only imagine why you'd do this. Haha
Horse dewormer was mentioned because that's what the maga cultists were using, because (sane) doctors wouldn't prescribe it to humans for a coronavirus.
You agree that Ivermectin isn't for coronavirus, right? Right?
There has been little to no research allowed that might prove otherwise, but some countries (that were denied access to the vaccine for profit reasons) seemed to have great success using it. That being said, calling it a horse dewormer within context is literally just lying. I'm actually giving them a chance when I leave out said context.
We're not talking about that. You keep trying to change my argument to saying that the virus leaked from a lab; I'm not supporting that. I'm saying the DIRECTOR OF THE CDC was sidelined because he believed there was enough evidence not to rule it out, which is what the narrative was at the time and WHY he was sidelined. We may never know, because the research isn't being done.
There has been little to no research allowed that might prove otherwise, but some countries (that were denied access to the vaccine for profit reasons) seemed to have great success using it.
The "it" they were using is clearly horse dewormer. Not sidelined CDC directors.
Also, just putting this out there. You can see who upvotes and downvotes any given comment.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting, Ivermectin could be used as both, but countries that were using it had been prescribing it to humans for quite a while, so I'm not sure where you're getting your information.
I find that it is often the case that people who say "do your homework/research" (wrt science/news) were the very same students who wouldn't do their homework.
People making claims that “injecting bleach will cure COVID,” “COVID is a hoax,” or “the vaccine contains nanobots to control us!” aren’t questioning anything. They’re making claims that are false and dangerous, leading to needless deaths. Quit trying to act like the COVID conspiracy theorists were simply asking questions in good faith rather that intentionally spreading disinformation in order to politicize a virus.
Well at least you can agree that it’s all disinformation. You’re right it isn’t illegal which is why nobody wound up in jail for spreading it.
I also see you quickly abandoned your stance that it’s “simply people asking questions” rather than something much more malicious and damaging to society.
There was a time I would believe you whole heartedly.
I despise book bans.
I see people try to censor other people's very existence.
I hate China's authoritarian laws.
I wish to strive to allow as much free speech and liberty reasonably possible.
Then COVID happened. Misinformation, narrative pushing, and just plain lying. My grandma died from the virus in a hospital not consistently wearing masks or even checking for it in the first place. A hospital wear fox news plays abound and nurses proudly talk about their "knowing" of what actually is happening.
This is bullshit. They were calling certain things misinformation before they themselves knew. What gives them authority to do this and who actually decides what is true? At the time many scientists, including the CDC director (who was forcibly sidelined after sharing his position), were saying we should investigate the lab leak theory, and they were all silenced as a result. Scientists were saying that they wouldn't have suggested quarantine (including the UKs top health advisor) as the understaffed medical/health facilities would cause more death than quarantines would save, they were saying that masks had little to no impact on CORONA viruses in the past and peer-reviewed articles suggesting this were literally removed from websites; the list goes on. Meanwhile the MSM was literally spreading misinformation like the Ivermectin story or the vaccine stopping spread story. You really have to trust someone quite a bit to just go along with this while all your freedoms are diminishing.
Many people assume the rule traces to “some old studies” on the flu, which found droplets won’t travel further than six feet, Gottlieb said—though research has since shown that Covid-19 can be spread through aerosols, which have the potential to travel many times further than droplets.
You didn't claim otherwise to social distancing. And this has to do with further research giving us better understanding.
Especially with people knew with confidence at the time. With everything being hectic.
I said that our government (US if that wasn't clear) wasn't suggesting solutions to the pandemic solely based on science in many cases. The social distancing mandate was an example of that. Criticism of this (the social distancing/masking solutions, etc.) was silenced and categorized as misinformation. So yes, I did say exactly that here:
"They were calling certain things misinformation before they themselves knew. What gives them authority to do this and who actually decides what is true?"
This is bullshit. They were calling certain things misinformation before they themselves knew. What gives them authority to do this and who actually decides what is true? At the time many scientists, including the CDC director (who was forced to resign), were saying we should investigate the lab leak theory, and they were all silenced as a result. Scientists were saying that they wouldn't have suggested quarantine (including the UKs top health advisor) as the understaffed medical/health facilities would cause more death than quarantines would save, they were saying that masks had little to no impact on CORONA viruses in the past and peer-reviewed articles suggesting this were literally removed from websites; the list goes on. Meanwhile the MSM was literally spreading misinformation like the Ivermectin story or the vaccine stopping spread story. You really have to trust someone quite a bit to just go along with this while all your freedoms are diminishing.
I said that our government (US if that wasn't clear) wasn't suggesting solutions to the pandemic solely based on science in many cases.
No you didn't. Liar
And you haven't proven or shown that "They were calling certain things misinformation before they themselves knew."
I literally copied and pasted my own comment; I don't understand where the confusion is coming from. "They" are the "Whitehouse" (via the FBI) that literally are what the trial of the post on which we're having this discussion were accused of; so yes, that's exactly what I said. They (the FBI/"Whitehouse") are on trial for influencing what should be sensored on social media as well as what information could be released during document requests to journalists. This included (based on the Twitter files) comments criticizing measures mandated by the government, including masking and social distancing requirements along with quarantine mandates.
My first article simply gave an example of one part of the mandates that weren't based on science with more stories to come once I can use an actual PC. It wasn't supposed to be my be-all-end-all source for everything I posited.
You call it wasting time, I call it protecting our freedom of speech, including yours. If you can't follow what I'm saying I'm sure other people can and will. The article on the OP is literally accusing the FBI under Biden of doing these things, and have given evidence showing as much, so I didn't feel the need to give evidence of this.
You don't care about anything beyond pushing your own narrative.
You keep jumping around to different claims, with no sources backing them up for what you said.
You claim to be protecting freedom of speech, but you aren't. You are only protecting bad faith actors, bots, and liars.
The line has to be drawn somewhere, and when it come to the health and safety of the public somethings have to take priority. Necessary things from what I have seen.
And this case is being appealed.
Biden admin’s likely appeal
Assuming the Biden administration appeals Doughty's ruling on the preliminary injunction, the government would likely make arguments similar to what it wrote in a May 2023 filing. There is a high legal bar for ruling that "significant encouragement" would "convert private conduct into state action," the administration argued.
"Since 2017, Executive Branch agencies and officials have promoted authoritative information or expressed concerns with the spread of misinformation," but "consistently recognized social media companies' authority over their platforms," Department of Justice lawyers wrote.
I disagree, and that should be okay. I shouldn't be censored for doing so. I shouldn't be put on a list of concerning individuals like the FBI has been proven to be doing as a result of the Twitter files. Seriously if you'd just read up on it your eyes would be opened. Our current (and past) leadership along with corporate elites are trying to scare you from "bad actors" in order that you give up your freedom. This allows them to stay in power.
I'm not "jumping around" on any claims I have made. All claims I have made are verifiable, and have followed logically throughout this discussion. I have backed up some of them with sources (time permitting) which you of course have disputed. If you take issue with any of my claims, be specific. I'm happy to provide sources when I have the time.
Also, of course they're going to appeal. Why would they give up on being able to censor us now?
Was it antiscience to say covid originated in a lab in China?
YES, there was little evidence AND there still isn't conclusive evidence that it was. They just used it as a reason to be racist toward Asian (and it did provably increase hate crime toward Asian people).
Was it antiscience to say 2 weeks to flatten the curve was BS?
YES, if people would have actually isolated, we would have had far fewer cases shortly after.
Was it antiscience to say cloth masks were ineffective?
YES, they are still effective and far better than not wearing a mask at all.
Was it antiscience to question the long term efficacy/long term side effects (I'm combining 2 questions here) of a drug that was not studied for the long term?
YES, the vaccine was not given to people widespread until after thorough testing. It's fact that almost any vaccine side effect will occur within the first few weeks of it being administered. There was also information and testing about the efficacy before it was widely distributed.
People questioning this stuff were given the answers by scientists, specialists, people with knowledge, and they outright denied the truth of the data. It's one thing to question, it's another thing to yell questions into the void and pretend you don't hear the answers.
Agreed. But I wouldn't say it's overstated; it's misleading. It's largely a quote from the judge, who may be an idiot, but they said what they said. "Trump-appointed judge rules that Biden Administration went too Far in Preventing Medical Misinformation," is wonky but more accurate.
He'd have to admit that they're human, first. This kind of person is usually too far gone to function in polite society anymore, though, so I'm not hopeful. This seriously sounds like some "eradicate the vermin" kinda shit.
I'll likely never resolve my issues with the south and southern culture, but I took my frustrations too far, and I apologize. The comment has been deleted.
Add comment