Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

[Daedalus X]

For this topic misinformation is any information that promotes needle hesitancy or anti authoritarian approved information.

Here is an example of misinformation that can't be posted to YouTube, twitter, Facebook or any mainline medium. Is this good public policy?



This is a MUST WATCH.

https://www.therealanthonyfaucimovie.com/viewing/

[historia]

It's the First Amendment, not the Commerce Clause, that is the obstacle to your suggestion.

Where does that put us?

It puts us in the situation where no one gets to use the government as a cudgel to force others to promote or censor speech.

We gave these big corporations a tool to censor whatever they want to censor, because we were afraid that children would see dirty images.

No, private companies always had the right to restrict speech. We didn't "give" that to Social Media companies in exchange for anything.

So now they can legally take down important information, that parents need, to make informed decisions regarding their children's medical care.

Parents should always consult with their children's doctors before making medical decisions.

This is a problem that needs to be fixed. And it is being fixed with alt media

Seems like you don't have a problem then.

[oldbadger]

Do you have any problem with these private media companies suppressing important medical information that could have saved millions of lives?

Hang on...... exactly which private media company and suppressing exactly what medical information?
Let's have an exact real example.

And by the way.... the title of your thread reads:- Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms? Now you've changed that in to 'important medical information'......... body-swerving much? But if you'll give an example as requested above, then I'll answer it. OK?

P.S.:- Where I live 'misinformation' is a can be banned by our 'information Commissioners' (UK)

[Purple Knight]

So, if a group of rich and or elite people can lie and manipulate society into giving them dictatorial power and then proceed to enslave the worlds population, could we then just say the masses got what they deserved for their stupidity?

To me it's not about whether they're stupid or not, but whether they agree to the fundamental principles that caused their enslavement. They wanted the chance to get rich. They wanted to do whatever they wanted with that money if they did become rich. In other words, they set up the board and chose the rules. They might not like the result, but at that point, too bad. I'm the only one who didn't really want to play Monopoly in the first place. I'm the only one (or one of a few) with fundamental objections to freedom that have nothing to do with what the outcome happens to be for me. When freedom was good, in the 90's, I was saying hey, I don't like this board, I don't like these rules, I don't want to play this game.

Many people think that I am overreacting, but take the Hunter Biden laptop story for example, now a lot of news networks are saying they were wrong about it being Russian disinformation and it was legit, and there is a good chance that we can get Hunter charged with some serious crimes, if nothing else we can get him to serve time for tax violations, and then we can put this whole ugly business behind us.

And that would be missing the whole point of this story. The real story is about the collusion between our news networks, social media, government especially FBI and the Justice Department to hide this information from the voters in the 2020 election.

They're lying and cheating a People who believe that lying and cheating are not fundamentally out of bounds. Yes I think people are getting what they deserve. I'm not interested in when they nitpick about who should be able to lie and when. They're just trying to keep their own ability to lie safe while also shielding themselves from the deception of others. Maybe they're afraid they'll lie accidentally and go to jail, and they should be afraid of that, because they will. If someone were to stop lying for half a second they'd probably lose their social status and job. We have a culture of lies we built. It's not surprising that the government and social media lies within such a culture. It's just a reflection of the culture. Lie and cheat to get ahead, it's only a foul if you punch somebody.

I wanted to strap lie detectors to people when freedom was good. I wanted to throw people in jail for fudging their resumes. Now we're seeing the fallout of not only letting people do whatever they want as long as nobody throws a punch, but protecting cheaty behaviour from punches: Liars and cheaters get ahead, and now they run everything.

Freedom sucks. It fundamentally sucks.

[Daedalus X]

I wanted to strap lie detectors to people when freedom was good.

When a society allows open debate, it becomes fairly clear, as to who is the liars and who is telling the truth. That is why debate is prohibited and information is censored by these bad actors.

Freedom sucks. It fundamentally sucks.

Every generation needs new freedom fighters, or freedom dies in darkness.

[Daedalus X]

Do you have any problem with these private media companies suppressing important medical information that could have saved millions of lives?

Hang on...... exactly which private media company and suppressing exactly what medical information?
Let's have an exact real example.

Have you seen this movie? It will tell you how many people died needlessly in the last 3 years due to suppression of information.
https://www.therealanthonyfaucimovie.com/trailer/

And by the way.... the title of your thread reads:- Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms? Now you've changed that in to 'important medical information'......... body-swerving much? But if you'll give an example as requested above, then I'll answer it. OK?

"Misinformation" is newspeak for "important medical information", check out the book "1984".

P.S.:- Where I live 'misinformation' is a can be banned by our 'information Commissioners' (UK)

Yes, I know, I read 1984. Biden tried to instal a Disinformation Czar, we sent her packing as fast as we could. The problem is that any information can be weaponized against ones political enemies. So having 'information Commissioners' will never end well.

[Daedalus X]

No, private companies always had the right to restrict speech. We didn't "give" that to Social Media companies in exchange for anything.

You are right, it was not "we", it was the Supreme Court in Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC.

Parents should always consult with their children's doctors before making medical decisions.

That is what I used to think, but it turns out that I care about my children, but my doctor cares about her career. People and companies who practice medicine in this world do it for money, lots of money. Take Gilead Sciences, for example, they found a cure for hepatitis c, then Goldman Sachs scolded them for running out of repeat customers.
Medicine is all about the money, not helping people. https://www.levinperconti.com/blog/big- ... ive-drugs/

This is a problem that needs to be fixed. And it is being fixed with alt media

Seems like you don't have a problem then.

The problem is that it will take a long time to wake people up. How many people are we going let this system kill before people can get the information they need to make an informed decision on their own health?

[oldbadger]

Have you seen this movie? It will tell you how many people died needlessly in the last 3 years due to suppression of information.
https://www.therealanthonyfaucimovie.com/trailer/

All I needed was an exact example of a private media company moderating or banning an item. You could write that in a couple of sentences but you failed to do that. I will look at your films and respond to them separately.

"Misinformation" is newspeak for "important medical information", check out the book "1984".

Rubbish. Misinformation is any deceitful, misleading, provocative, inciteful info or propaganda.

Yes, I know, I read 1984. Biden tried to instal a Disinformation Czar, we sent her packing as fast as we could. The problem is that any information can be weaponized against ones political enemies. So having 'information Commissioners' will never end well.

The thread title reads:-
'Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?'

Answer:- Yes! Absolutely!

I will look at your films now and reply to them in a minute.

[oldbadger]

https://www.therealanthonyfaucimovie.com/trailer/

This website wanted my details, contact and private info before I could proceed further. It also wanted me to send money.
I never watched anything on it at all.

And this showed a woman singing a clever song.

I am waiting for an example about some misinformation....ANY information, being banned by a 'major platform'.
You can show me 'any' information being banned by 'any' platform and we could then scrutinize that exact situation.

I begin to believe that you haven't got anything to offer so I will show you just one exact example of a UK warning to people about total rubbish being published in connection with the Covid Virus...... we think that Media companies should DO MORE to combat rubbish info being spouted :-

Misinformation ruins lives, UK fact-checker says - Reutershttps://www.reuters.com › article › us-health-coronavir...
29 Apr 2020 — Internet and media companies should do more to tackle the spread of misinformation in Britain as falsehoods abound during the coronavirus ...

[Daedalus X]

All I needed was an exact example of a private media company moderating or banning an item. You could write that in a couple of sentences but you failed to do that. I will look at your films and respond to them separately.

Thousands of doctors have been banned from social media. It truly worries me that so many people have not noticed.

https://www.turnto23.com/news/coronavir ... by-youtube
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/28/tech/fac ... index.html

Rubbish. Misinformation is any deceitful, misleading, provocative, inciteful info or propaganda.

I would have agreed with you three years ago, but the language has shifted. The newspeak definition of "misinformation" is any information weather true or false that is not approved by the government and needs to be banned.

This website wanted my details, contact and private info before I could proceed further. It also wanted me to send money.
I never watched anything on it at all.

There is more than one way to skin a cat. Here is a copy that needs no details and it does work in the UK.

And this showed a woman singing a clever song.

She is the person that was going to be in charge of censoring information for my safety. It would have been for the greater good, we would not have to verify anything for ourselves, that is just too laborious. We could just take her word for everything.

Misinformation ruins lives, UK fact-checker says - Reutershttps://www.reuters.com › article › us-health-coronavir...
29 Apr 2020 — Internet and media companies should do more to tackle the spread of misinformation in Britain as falsehoods abound during the coronavirus ...

That in itself is misinformation in oldspeak.

"Fact-checker" is newspeak for anyone who lies to keep people from finding the truth about what big business and big government are doing.

The UK does not have a democracy anymore, if you want it back you will need to fight for it. (peacefully if at all possible)

Here is another banned video from Robert Kennedy, about democracy, that is worth watching.

[Purple Knight]

I wanted to strap lie detectors to people when freedom was good.

When a society allows open debate, it becomes fairly clear, as to who is the liars and who is telling the truth. That is why debate is prohibited and information is censored by these bad actors.

Freedom sucks. It fundamentally sucks.

Every generation needs new freedom fighters, or freedom dies in darkness.

The kind of freedom you want is not freedom. It's an authoritarian government with a LOT of power aggressively stamping people out who use their freedom to suppress information, stifle debate, and punish people who think wrong.

It happens to be what I want too. I'm just not using positive words to describe it because it's tyranny, plain and simple. It's tyranny where the tyrant happens to like open debate, and happens to think that's a positive thing for his society. I don't even think it's achievable because this tyrant is going to take a lot of flak he doesn't deserve for protecting people from being stifled, and if he's sane he's going to realise that people who attack their protector don't deserve the protection.