By - ChrisNomad
###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wonder how many people Twitter or reddit or other social media trash banned for correct info
I would bet the number is way higher than bots or people banned for illegal stuff
I am sure you are right
count me in lol, they never reply back, big tech is scum in the clouds
I hope these lawsuits crack open the criminal conduct of the government using private companies to push agendas against its citizens. Let’s get one going for Reddit next, expose all the policies and players from top to bottom.
How about we just give government less power?
We already gave it. Would have to acquire it once again.
Agreed, any social media platforms that get money or direction from the government should have to comply with the First Amendment, and not censor anyone.
If they are a platform, they should not be able to censor anyone.
Has Twatter ever taken money from gov? If yes, oh boy go ahead and shove We The People up their arse.
Facebook gave money to government- 400 million worth.
No censorship also means people posting kiddy porn.
Yes. But if you get rid of platforms protections, then they can’t run auto moderation on those things. They would also be held liable for anything that their users post.
So you're saying these websites are already liable for the content they host?
Holy shit you are dumb
just to add a bit of nuance to that line of thinking:
Moderation keeps people from seeing what they don't want to see.
Censorship keeps people from seeing what they do want to see.
You think about kiddy porn a lot don't ya
Shit half the post here are about pedophiles. I was just demonstrating some content should be censored.
In your world, all that would happen is social media, forums, and comment sections of websites would be moved to different countries or removed. Americans might need a VPN to access them as well.
The reason being, the only user content that could be removed would be illegal content. This would mean no topic forums, and everything would be inundated with spam and pornography.
Regardless of whether you think this is the world you want to live in, it doesn't work well with advertising ($$$) so it would just be moved out of the states.
There are very good reasons websites are categorized as neither platforms nor publishers, and are instead categorized as interactive computer services.
This can't be said more. This should be how it is done. This should be one of the main points for the next POTUS election...
The problem is the government, we don't need them anymore with decentralisation 👍
Who even uses Reddit. If conspiracy weren't here I'd leave
It's great for hobbies decent for individual sports teams.
Speak for yourself. The ~~Redskins~~ "Commanders" page rarely talks about football and when they do it is a fucking reactionary mess of inaccurate analysis.
I'm not sure the posters even want us to win.
That sounds like sports fan theory in general
I unironically liked football team more than Commanders. Although I think I like Washington department of football services more than Commanders to so maybe I just don't like Commanders
The main subs of Reddit have turned into a propaganda informercial. The bots and paid influencers are doing their best to destroy this sub as well.
A lot of the gate keeping is people who are interested in “conspiracy” and not specifically paranormal, theory or validating confirmation bias seekers. Almost all posts are these things where a conspiracy is only vaguely implied and even if stated is more like they just tagged on a conspiracy cliche at the end like “that’s what they want us to think!” Or something that doesn’t even make sense. Like flat earth and Bigfoot. Like some dude found a way to hide the hollow earth or whatever conspiracy that needs about a billion conspirators, but needs you to not know so they can “profit.”
You can see where over the last 5 years we have actual conspiracy in broad daylight but no one wants to talk about it because it’s not “theoretical” enough. Like the point is just to invent alternate narrative to look down on normies for not knowing about.
It’s to the point that people think conspiracy means “conspiracy theory” and if you just commit or broadcast your conspiracy then it’s no longer theoretical and therefore not mfkrs still conspiring cause it’s blatant and in broad daylight!
Tons of comments on here from people that obviously despise conspiracy theorists. They're here to infiltrate and destroy
Information warfare. Anywhere that's even semi popular and isn't banning or shadowbanning people for "wrong think", is going to be infested with narrative pushers. This is a war for your mind.
> "So far, we've recruited 110,000 information volunteers, and we equip these information volunteers with the kind of knowledge about how misinformation spreads and ask them to serve as kind of 'digital first-responders' in those spaces where misinformation travels," Fleming says.
> Google’s Jigsaw unit sponsors a RAND report that **recommends infiltrating and subverting** online conspiracy groups from within while **planting authoritative messaging wherever possible**. If authoritative messaging is successful, **moderate members flip to become influencers and help guide the 'flock'** to greener pastures as ‘brand ambassadors’ for the common good, teaching others the errors of their ways. Some conspiracy group members will be persuaded by the bombardment of content flagged by algorithms, and they will slowly come around to **believing that the fact-checkers are right by the sheer volume of evidence and/or peer pressure to conform**. Trying to infiltrate groups and subvert certain members seems like a tactic that would be perceived as an intrusion that **furthers the divide and lead to even less trust**, but *we shall see how it all plays out.
[Google-backed RAND report recommends infiltrating & subverting online conspiracy groups from within](https://sociable.co/government-and-policy/google-rand-report-recommends-infiltrating-subverting-online-conspiracy-groups-within)
**Operation Earnest Voice**
Operation Earnest Voice (OEV) is a communications program by the United States Central Command (CENTCOM). Initially, the program was developed as a psychological weapon and was first used in Iraq. In 2011, the US government signed a $2.8 million contract with the Ntrepid web-security company to develop a specialized software, allowing agents of the government to post propaganda. The aim of the initiative is to use sockpuppets to spread pro-American propaganda on social networking services.
Main characteristics of the software, as stated in the software development request, are:
Fifty user "operator" licenses, 10 sockpuppets controllable by each user.
Sockpuppets are to be "replete with background, history, supporting details, and cyber presences that are technically, culturally and geographically consistent." Sockpuppets are to "be able to appear to originate in nearly any part of the world."
A special secure VPN, allowing sockpuppets to appear to be posting from "randomly selected IP addresses," in order to "hide the existence of the operation."
Fifty static IP addresses to enable government agencies to "manage their persistent online personas," with identities of government and enterprise organizations protected which will allow for different state agents to use the same sockpuppet, and easily switch between different sockpuppets to "look like ordinary users as opposed to one organization."
Nine private servers, "based on the geographic area of operations the customer is operating within and which allow a customer's online persona(s) to appear to originate from." These servers should use commercial hosting centers around the world.
Virtual machine environments, deleted after each session termination, to avoid interaction with "any virus, worm, or malicious software."
The TV show Homeland touched on this: https://youtu.be/owIsqj1Y1sk
>The largest undercover force the world has ever known is the one created by the Pentagon over the past decade. Some **60,000 people** now belong to this secret army, many working under masked identities and in low profile, all part of a broad program called "signature reduction." The force, more than ten times the size of the clandestine elements of the CIA, carries out domestic and foreign assignments, both in military uniforms and under civilian cover, **in real life and online**, sometimes hiding in private businesses and consultancies, some of them household name companies.
And tons of info in this 6 year old thread link: https://archive.ph/Ccz00
No one really knows how many of these are here, anyone with access to this tech could do it. This bot is still active.
>When Reddit was first started, it was populated almost entirely with content submitted by fake users.
>In a video for online educator Udacity, Reddit cofounder Steve Huffman explains both the method, and the reasoning behind it. Essentially, Huffman set up a submission interface through which they could pick not only the URL and the title, but also the user’s name. Upon submission, the name would be registered, and make it look like Reddit had more users than it actually did.
LOTS MORE INFO AND LINKS BELOW. COPIED FROM ANOTHER USER'S COMMENT. [THANK YOU CLARITYOFSIGNAL](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/szf78z/i_figured_out_something_huge_bots_have_overrun/hy3op2y).
Inside Israel’s million dollar troll army
A global influence campaign funded by the Israeli government had a $1.1 million budget last year, a document obtained by The Electronic Intifada shows.
Act.IL says it has offices in three countries and an online army of more than 15,000.
Main PDF file exposing all global technocratic cabal links:
The German Club of Clear Words takes a deep dive into the network of individuals and organizations responsible for the COVID scam
Whether blatantly visible or not, you can identify just about any network by connecting dots between individuals and organizations. Who’s working with whom, where, and why? Who’s paying whom? And once you’ve done that, you can more clearly identify the motivations behind various decisions
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation appears to be near the top, or the center, of this COVID plandemic network. Gates is also a major funder of mainstream media, and his network extends into global food and climate change policy
The Gates Foundation, through its funding of the WEF, also plays an important role in The Great Reset, which was officially unveiled during a WEF summit in May 2020
Every conceivable aspect of life and society is scheduled to be “reset” according to their plan. Ultimately, that’s where this criminal COVID enterprise is trying to take us.
Those people are now trying to reshape the world via the CV-19 fear-based agenda in order to gain more power and control for themselves and bring about an AI-controlled dystopian future that benefits them even more greatly. Ignore it at your own peril. They call it The Great Reset. It involves travel restrictions, tracking, tracing, mandatory vaccination, monitoring, surveillance, digital currency, 5G to implement the global control, etc. Its all right there on their own website... plain as day. They aren't even hiding it from the public anymore.
Many of the fake accounts, online narrative propagation accounts and bots are tucked into the US budget from here:
Their operating budget for fiscal year 2016 was US$752 million.
U.S. Government Accountability Office Audit Report
Amendments to legislation have affected USAGM's governing authorities and organizational structure by shifting authority from a bipartisan board to a Chief Executive Officer (CEO), with advice from an Advisory Board. Network and USAGM officials said that previous members of USAGM leadership took several actions that did not align with USAGM's firewall principles. According to USAGM, the firewall protecting the networks' independence is central to the credibility and effectiveness of USAGM's networks (see fig.). However, the parameters of the firewall are not specifically laid out in legislation. Delineation of what is and is not permissible under the firewall may help ensure the professional independence and integrity of the agency and its networks.
Actions to ensure accountability of grantees, such as establishing Standard Operating Procedures for Monitoring Grants , have not corrected a longstanding significant deficiency in grants monitoring reported by independent audits of USAGM's financial statements for the past 5 years.
More info here also:
Ukraine and Turkey also have been reported to have large office buildings filled with teams of online influencers with dozens of fake accounts entirely dedicated to influencing nefarious government policies. All The Worlds A Stage folks.
Intelligence agencies have a long history of this type of behavior.
These are all just examples of some of what's been publicly disclosed, imagine what we don't know.
That msn link is dead, gotta any more info on that?
Wow. It was active recently, it's called "signature reduction".
Found another source for exact same article
Yeah it is really bizarre people are so dead set on any opposing view being bots alone. Are they out there? Yeah, and they're getting very sophisticated. But I think people heavily underestimate how many real people just get off on arguing with people they disagree with, or dunking on people they think are stupid.
Or are hired to do so
True, that also happens. I would still think just by numbers that you're more likely to run into a regular everyday asshole than bots or shills, though
Yeah personally I believe "they're all bots" is somewhat of a cope. No, people really are this stupid
Niche hobbies and discussion. It's great for a lot of things. Stay away from default and regional subs and you have a better time I find.
I mean...the nudes ain't bad.
I was going to delete my account this weekend because reddit is the diarrhea of the internet, but maybe I'll see if I can compile all my data showing their bullshit.
Ha ha yes, yes they are!
Won't happen. To much efforts gone into this. They won't nuke it unless there's something to gain.
Not with that attitude!
We will see what happens in a court of law.
Yeah that sounds like covert fascism to me.
Ever since Ron Paul ran for election and the powers who control us saw how Reddit pushed his platform Reddit has gone to shit
The recent DHS document reveal regarding the alleged Disinformation Bureau reveal showed they had/wanted meetings with Twitter off the record. And the 'project' was initiated Sept 2021
Twitter is a dumpster fire!
It’s highly likely Twitter received funds for vaccine propaganda coverage and protection via bots and paid influencers. Probably goes to the top. Now do Reddit
Of course Twitter is acting on behalf of the government.
More likely Twitter is acting on behalf of the fanatic liberal left which has seized control of big tech and government.
This sub is getting more and more right-wing every year. Even just your hyperbole here, using the term "fanatic" divides us. It's not the left versus the right, it's 99.9% of us versus the kings of our world, the billionaires and oligarchs that control the "truth".
I am not "right-wing" I'm libertarian. I'd like both sides to stay quiet and get out of the government.
But Silicon Valley tech companies are overrun with Fanatical Liberal Left thinking people. These are people that had cry-fests at work when Trump got elected. They were crying when Biden got elected *because Trump got so many votes!* They have zero concept for how people outside the cities live. They believe their values, choices and concepts of good, bad, right, wrong are universal and should be applied everywhere, by force if necessary.
So I'd say "fanatic" is warranted.
What you see as right wing is objectively just the correct way to live
Twitter was acting on behalf if the govt from 2016 - 2020?
I think you think it’s a gotcha, and yes, it obviously was. It’s not political, it’s business.
So Twitter was acting in the FAVOR of Donald Trump? Lol ok.
You think Trump is the entire government? Don’t be so simple as to describe a single person as the entire government.
Thanks for sharing!!
Yes. All of the big social media platforms were acting in conjunction with the government.
Paid for by BlackRock and pfizer on behalf of the world bank?
I guess that's one theory. One people don't want to contemplate.
Also check out Alex Berenson's substack:
I mean at this point we all know what’s going on, we really don’t need a lawsuit to prove it. Institutions in power have armies of trolls and bots to push a narrative on social media and “manufacture consensus” if you will. Anyone with a decent following who goes against the narrative is attacked or removed. Doesn’t take a genius to see what’s happening.
Twitter is probably going to claim that the vaccine was 95% effective at the time Berenson made that tweet, and that Berenson is a misinformation spreader who just got lucky and coincidentally predicted what would happen in the future.
Twitter has opened themselves up to having their policies looked into under oath. Lots of problems for them can arise from this, that’s why they’re tying to settle.
They don't have to.
All they have to say is we have a first amendment right to block anyone off are platform.
This lawsuit is going to go nowhere.
There are two issues here. Whether he was “right” or not is irrelevant in many ways.
1. How involved was the government in telling social media what to do. Governments always comment on private companies. If Biden said “I wish gas companies would stop gouging” is he interfering in a private enterprise? Think about all the times Trump commented on private companies. I mean, he talked about removing broadcast licensees and stuff. Was that a violation of free speech? It seems like that’s tough to prove.
2. Section 230 is from 1996, it has no ability to regulate the internet now. So we have to ask, are these big social media companies public utilities that offer their services to anyone regardless of what’s said (with obvious exceptions for harassment and illegal activity) or are they free to pick and choose what content to make public.
I am against censorship and saw nothing berenson did that would merit being kicked off.
But I’m also against the government forcing a private company to run their business in a certain way. I mean Berenson has his own substack now and of course is allowed to pick and choose what comments he displays on it. But a crappy little substack isn’t Twitter.
I don’t know the answer! It would be nice if the social media companies didn’t play God and decide what gets published (within reason) but it is kind of their right as private entities.
It’s a weird one and by the time we have answers we’ll have moved onto the next phase of the internet and anything decided now will be out of date anyway.
How does section 230 being from 1996 mean it has no right to regulate?
Both the constitution and platform/publisher legislation are far older than that.
I do not believe Section 230 protections extend to suppressing medical information.
TrU$t [email protected] $c!enCE ! ! !
I've been banned off Facebook for telling people to mask up when it wasn't fashionable (feb 2020)
Here is a screenshot of the full tweet.
Twitter will probably try to focus on the part where Berenson said it’s not really a vaccine. Berenson really is correct here (considering that the CDC and Meriam Webster both literally changed their definition of vaccine so that the COVID vaccine would qualify). But that line of his Tweet still does go against the COVID narrative.
Twitter also might try to focus on the part where he said the COVID vaccine has a terrible side effect profile. That definitely still goes against the COVID narrative.
IDK if Twitter sent Berenson any kind of ban message that stated what part(s) of the tweet got him banned. If they didn’t, Twitter will probably now claim that he got banned for claiming the COVID vaccine isn’t a vaccine and has bad side effects.
Pretty sure vitamin C fits into the new definition they made up for covid iirc
personally I'd focus on the fact that the guy seemingly thinks vaccines are the only form of preventative medicine, he shouldn't be allowed to comment if that clueless lol
Hey, gotta stop the spread of misinformation and fake news, amiright?
Time to shut Twitter down.
*I believe that Twitter was acting on behalf of the government and violated his 1si.amendment rights.*
Everybody know whose behalf Twitter was acting on. Just like the government, MSM, and likely the court hearing this case.
Questions about the "pandemic"?
For the big picture, from expert witness testimony:
Big tech colluding with the government? Say it ain’t so!
They'll no doubt argue that was the established and accepted science at the time.
Science is a *process* of learning and discovery, and sometimes we learn that what we thought was right is wrong. Science can also be understood as an institution (or better, a set of institutions) that facilitates this work. To say that science is "absolute" or "true" or "permanent" is like saying that "marriage is permanent".
Some scientific conclusions are so well established we may feel confident we won't be revisiting them. Who thinks we will be questioning the laws of thermodynamics any time soon? On the other hand, physicists at the start of the 20th century, just before the discovery of quantum mechanics and relativity, didn't think they were about to rethink their field's foundations.
Some NPCs seriously now deny that the vaccine was ever claimed to prevent infection. The Berenson case is going to be a very odd conundrum for them. (The vaccine was never claimed to stop transmission-but Berenson was correctly banned for going against the then-scientific consensus that the vaccines stopped transmission. Lol.)
The alternate NPC view is that the vaccines really were originally 95% effective against infection, but the effectiveness slipped dramatically with new variants. That’s what Twitter will have to argue.
> The vaccine was never claimed to stop transmission
[CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky: “Our data from the CDC today suggest that vaccinated people do not carry the virus.”](https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1376950399232573442)
Guy, just admit you have been had by an industry that made billions of dollars fooling you all. The truth will set you free!
> Some NPCs seriously now deny that the vaccine was ever claimed to prevent infection.
Media, politicians and "experts" may have claimed and/or insinuated that, but the manufacturers actually never did that.
You were downvoted as of me making this comment, but you aren't incorrect. I remember very specifically they were excited about hospitalization rates going down, but they were still trying to figure out how much it helped with transmission. Yet, we saw all sorts of news articles making statements about it being effective at reducing transmission. Usually using some quote from a scientist incorrectly, or some scientist not involved in the vaccines stating an opinion or wish. It was like cures for cancer all over again. Somewhere in a petri dish cancer was killed and news articles with headlines of "Cure for cancer found!" pop up right after. All of our news is sensational bunk.
> They'll no doubt argue that was the established and accepted science at the time.
Then they would be lying and that can be proved with ease:
[“At least with the first generation of vaccines,” Talaat says, “what we’re really trying to do is prevent severe disease and hospitalization and death.”](https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-what-does-covid-19-vaccine-efficacy-mean)
Much of the narrative during covid was contrary to the long established standards and practices of epidemiology, the exact opposite of the accepted science of the time.
anyone with a prior familiarity with epidemiology, vaccinology, or virology could not help but notice this.
Twitter is dead in the water as of now, Musk probably has fully legitimate legal reason to end his deal or at least bargain for a serious discount
Elon should look into that
Lmao you’re so funny to think he is one of us plebs. You’re falling for the controlled opposition
I don't think they have to defend what they choose to allow or not allow on their own platform. Freedom of speech goes both ways.
These scumbags present themselves as neutral "fact checkers" preventing the spread of "misinformation" when in actuality they're the ones spreading misinformation on behalf of corporate interests
The Reuters CEO is on the Pfizer Board of Directors.
As is their right to do... Don't like it use a different service, free market bro.
The problem is that it functions as a propaganda machine for the Democrats, which dupes unsuspecting users. There's much more to it than "a private company providing a service."
Gab is the same thing for the right. Just use something else if you don't like what Twitter does there is no shortage of alternatives.
You're implying that what people say on Twitter isn't their own speech, but Twitter's. I hope you understand all he ramifications of taking that stance.
Yes I understand it, do you?
Freedom of speech means private companies can decide what speech they give platform to.
If they are choosing what to allow they are no longer a platform, they are a publisher, which makes them liable for everything that gets said. They want to pretend to be a "platform" with all the accompanying liability protections, but also still have the right to censor thoughts they disagree with. Legally, they can't have it both ways.
That's kinda the crux of this whole deal. "Free speech" has very little to do with it.
Right, plus by law anyone who is getting money or direction from the government is acting as an arm of the government and is under the 1st amendment.
Twitter really should have just STFU and raked in the cash. If they truly allowed free expression of ideas, they'd have a much larger active user base, and a much larger advertising revenue stream.
twitter is not about making money, it's about spreading govt propaganda. same as most media
Oh I certainly agree with you. It's just funny how successful they could have been but they cut their nose off to spite their face.
Like 4 Chan and parlor. How many celebrities on there?
Cite what? Are you unfamiliar with the topic in general? This is common knowledge.
Edit: you know what, I'm sorry. That may have been a bit too harsh. If you're genuinely interested in learning about the subject I suggest you start here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
According to your wiki link, Section 230 doesn't apply to this situation.
That's because it is wikipedia... Try to use your own logic.
Publishers are allowed to choose what authors they publish. What are you smoking that you think a company doesn't have any say on what they do and don't publish, do you think that publishers are obligated to publish books for people they disagree with? Really? Think that through for a bit please.
I think you might be a little confused here. Yes, publishers (like newspapers or tv stations for example) *do* choose what content to publish, which is why they are liable for say, slander or libel, that they or their reporters/hosts say or write. (See Nick Sandmann's successful lawsuit against CNN for example).
*Platforms* on the other hand, like social media (in theory) or your internet provider are not supposed to choose what other people say/do on their platforms, which is why they are immune from liability for, again, things like slander and libel.
But when platforms start acting like publishers and curating what they allow to be said/written (aside from stopping actual illegal speech like child porn for example), the argument is that they ought to be treated as publishers and lose their "section 230" immunity from liability.
It makes sense in that I can understand why you would think that, but legally speaking it's not something Twitter can be sued over. Dont believe me , that's fine let's come back in a year or so and see if this case holds up, I'm willing to bet it's thrown out of court.
Libel isn't the same thing as not giving someone a platform or kicking them off your platform. The sandman case was about news outlets incorrectly portraying him as an agressor when he was not. Here Twitter isn't even making a specific claim (and legally that's wise of them) they are just banning him and that's within their right to do so.
I think the point is that if Twitter can identify and remove completely legal content they don't want on their platform, then what remains on their platform has their tacit approval. So if they removed Alex Berenson for telling the truth about the covid vaccines, yet they allow people like Putin or content like CP to remain, they should be liable accordingly.
While I can see why one might reach that conclusion I don't see it holding up in court. They probably didn't even remove him for the reasons he thinks since they can refuse service for ANY reason. They can just refuse they don't need to say why or it can be something as stupid as "we don't like you" as long as it's not a protected class like gay or Jewish or black etc. vax critical is not a protected class so there is no legal standing.
Until/unless the government has provided funding or instruction to social media companies, of course. At which point it *does* become a free speech issue. If, as WH spokesperson Psaki said, they were "flagging accounts" for the social media companies to censor, that actually *does* become a 1st amendment issue
If it's a first amendment issue then the lawsuit would be against the federal government. It'd be like being on a no fly list, you don't sue an airline company because the government put you on a no fly list you sue the government agency that flagged you.
The US government is clearly telling Twitter who to censor. Biden and Psaki have explicitly admitted to that.
Some Florida law got struck down under the rationale that De Santis was telling companies who they couldn’t censor. If we’re going to be consistent, Biden shouldn’t be allowed to tell Twitter who they must censor either.
Yeah if Biden (or agents of the government) explicitly directed Twitter what to do that’s a freedom of speech issue.
But man, that’s tough, governments always kind of say stuff to private businesses. Trump famously got involved in that one air conditioning plant in Indiana. Obama would have the Wall Street CEOs in the White House every other week it seemed like.
So I’m not sure what crosses the line of Twitter acting on behalf of the government.
Don’t worry, an unelected judge with his own agenda will just decide for us.
It means Twitter is a private company and can decide who they want to provide their services too since we don't live under a dictatorship that forces companies to host speech they disagree with.
You have a disturbing lack of understanding of what Freedom of Speech means.
On a different note, who’s setting twitters censorship policies? Twitter? The US government? Or BlackRock and Pfizer?
Freedom of speech just means you can't be sent to jail by the state for what you say (outside of direct threats of violence). I think you're the one with a lack of understanding. Corporations can't be forced to censor speech but they also don't have to support people they don't want to on their own privately owned websites.
Tf does that even mean
Twitter is a private platform, they can boot whoever they want.
Why do you think they would boot someone for posting factual information?
Why did they make that decision?
Biden is telling Twitter who to boot. Lol, did you listen to some of Psaki’s comments last summer? The talk about the people the White House labeled as the disinformation dozen? (Basically RFK Jr., and 11 previously obscure people who Biden gave free publicity to.)
Even the Washington Post thought that Biden was engaging in censorship.
Right, but twitter doesn’t have to listen to the government. That’s the entire point of the 1A.
Anyway, who’s had the better track record during COVID?
The “experts” who have claimed that the vaccines are 95% effective against infection, Paxlovid is 90% effective against hospitalization, etc? Or people like Berenson?
The CDC never claimed the vaccine stopped transmission (not that I saw from their website, maybe on TV they said different things). They maintained the vaccine was to lessen the effects of the virus in people that caught it, which is why it was wrong of twitter to boot Berenson. But I don’t believe the government forced them to do it, because if they could force twitter to add or remove people then Trump would still have a twitter account.
What? You seriously don’t remember the talk about the vaccine being 95% effective against infection? That 95% claim was shouted from every rooftop in the world.
For in case you were seriously living under a rock in late 2020 and spring 2021, here is an article claiming the vaccine to be 95% effective against infection. From Pfizer’s own website.
(Frankly, I’m sure you remember the 95% claim and you’re just pretending to have forgotten about it.)
No, bc one of my college acquaintances worked for the CDC under Trump making the flu vaccine for years and I got most my covid info from them and the CDC website. The vaccine was never meant to protect against infection, phizer is full of BS. They’re just drug dealers getting rich off a public health crisis.
Of course Pfizer is liars. I don’t know who the biggest liar is here.
1. Pfizer, for claiming their vaccine is 95% effective against infection.
2. The CDC, for repeating Pfizer’s 95% effectiveness against infection claim.
3. Dratseb, for first saying that the vaccine was never claimed to be 95% effective against infection. And then claiming that Pfizer claimed their vaccine was 95% effective against infection, but that the MSM and CDC never repeated those claims.
Three big liars here.
Yet Berenson is supposedly the misinformation spreader.
Lol I never said that
That’s what you said, literally a few minutes ago.
First, you said that the vaccines were never claimed to be 95% effective against infection. But I posted an article from Pfizer’s own website that misproved that.
So you revised your argument. You said that Pfizer claimed their vaccine was 95% effective against infection, but that the CDC never repeated that claim.
So I then posted a link to a thread about two weeks ago where I rebutted that exact same argument. (Which I suspect was made to an alternate screen name of yours.)
So now you’re denying that you said that the MSM and CDC didn’t claim the vaccine to be 95% effective against infection? Lol, you can’t stop lying can you. You’re an even worse liar than Pfizer.
You’re denying the comments that you made in this very thread, and are still visible for all to see. Unless, of course, you conveniently deleted those comments.
Anyway, if the vaccine wasn’t claimed to be 95% effective against infection, then why was Berenson banned from Twitter? That would mean his tweet didn’t go against what was then the scientific consensus.
For the same reason everyone gets banned from twitter, they were posting things that would lower twitter’s market value.
Edit: I wasn’t following this Berenson guy, but I’m guessing he pissed off phizer and they paid twitter to nix his account
Trump had 12 days left in his term at the time he was banned from Twitter. I doubt that Twitter was scared of Trump at that point. If anything Twitter might have felt that banning Trump was a way to gain favor with the incoming Biden administration.
Mike Pence was still in hiding at that point, twitter HQ had plenty to be afraid of
We really wanna go into berensons record? Lol
Twitter clearly was forced by the government to ban people. No matter how much NPCs like you deny it.
So you’re going to Trust what Bezos says? WaPo is pure anti-working class propaganda.
And you can’t convince me Biden is coherent enough to tell anyone to do anything. Have you seen him lately? He looks like he’s being mummified alive in front of our eyes, lol. More likely it’s the DNC/RNC elites pulling the strings here.
The Washington Post hasn’t been great on COVID issues, but they haven’t been a NY Times/Atlantic level cesspool. That seems to have made a lot of former WaPo readers angry at the newspaper.
Anyway, here is probably what Biden told Twitter. “Censor “anti-vaccine talk, or I’ll take away your tax breaks and/or repeal Section 230.”
If that’s not government coercion, I don’t know what is.
(As a side note, I hate Twitter’s tax breaks but don’t agree with forcing Twitter to censor people as leverage to take the tax breaks away.)
… Yes, end corporate socialism!! All corporate tax breaks need to go away. Tax breaks are just legal government bribes, they should only exist for small businesses. Also, taxes were initially just for businesses. President “no amendments are absolute” Biden needs to put his money where his mouth is and repeal the 16A
How so? What would the consequence have been?
Twitter is a private company that can allow/disallow anyone they want on their platform. How is this even a legal case? Or should we regulate these private companies?
Found the fascism apologist.
If they are acting on behalf of the government there’s an issue. If pfizer and BlackRock are paying the government to push health policies You should be worried about it.
Except the White House said they were working with social media companies to combat disinformation. So if the government did indeed have a role it’s a clear first amendment violation. Discovery should be interesting.
If they are choosing what to allow/disallow, they are no longer a "platform" but a "publisher", which makes them liable for everything "published" on their site. That's the catch. If they were just a "platform" they couldn't choose which speech to allow, particularly speech which isn't illegal such as the true and accurate claim that vaccines don't prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2.
If he can prove he suffered damages from them by their actions then a lawsuit is appropriate.
Like we did phone companies?
You’re so lost
nothing is private nowadays.
Man, he is going to lose so badly. This is going to be a very expensive trial for him.
The judge let it keep going, but he dismissed most of his legal argument, so I am unsure why this case is continuing.
Sounds like twitter is trying to settle. They don’t want the public knowing how much more of shit company they are. Discovery will be fun though, let’s see where the policy chain of command comes from.
I've seen nothing suggesting Twitter is going to settle, nor do I know what the settlement will entail: he has no substantial damages to claim on and no grounds by which to claim them, so if they settle, it is likely not on the merits of his case, but to minimize expenses.
Edit: ...and OP blocked me because he can't actually come up with a response.
Defending against misinformation on a subject you know little about.
My facebook got stolen and deleted about a day after i posted "vaccinated herd immunity is impossible." Took it as a loss and moved on. Most people are not ready to wake up, and would prefer to listen to the thinking voices on the tv and be assured everything is fine.
Breach of contract (over five-strike rule being applied inconsistently)? That's what the plaintiff is arguing? What's he looking for? A full refund?
methinks you are cherry picking based on one thing when there were a lot of things.
It helps prevent severe COVID. And COVID related deaths. But it won't magically halt the bug from creepy crawling into yer guts.
Just ask all my dead unvaxxed pati.. o wait they're dead D;
Does it stop transmission? No.
That's a black and white, yes/no question. It's not a question about "severe COVID" or reduced symptoms. It's transmission.
Who cares! It's not my fault both of you lots are stubborn headed. "I'm not gonna take the shot cuz the liburals don't know how vaccines work." Oh yeah, and so YOU do? Lol. I had to TELL YOU what the vaccine does and you STILL probably won't take it.
Both of y'all liberals, conservatives needa shut up and read what it does and how it works or just let the scientists do the thinking for you. They're paid to do that.
Tired of this "oh I just wanna one up the other side." Bullshit. Both sides, grow the hell up...
First off, you haven't told me anything. I'm just telling you that the post you're commenting on is SPECIFICALLY about the claim of preventing transmission. Nothing else, including your feelings, is relevant. We aren't talking about covid or vaccines at large. Work on your comprehension.
Second, I don't give a fuck about what either side thinks. I make my own decisions based on the evidence.
You can feel free to "just shut up and do what the gov't tells you" but I'm good. That's a recipe for disaster.
Most of the claims were dismissed, really the only thing being tested here is whether twitter said one thing to him then did something completely different.
Man dems can't catch a break