Media Bias

[JimC]

Does Cunt think the Biden administration was out of line (about anything, really...)?

Does a bear shit in the woods?

[Joe]

Grey man bad!

[L'Emmerdeur]

Grey man bad!

[pErvinalia]

It is unlikely that anybody will get an honest discussion of that issue with the fellow who claims to be so concerned about it.

Yeah. It makes it pretty pointless trying to engage him in honest conversation.

[Brian Peacock]

But the bleach drinkers, heat lamp peddlers, and horse wormer enthusiasts are entitled to have their opinions disseminated to the widest possible audience - whether that audience wants to hear those opinions or not, and regardless of the harm they might cause! Anything but free speech absolutism is just oppressive communism dressed up as facts! In the marketplace of ideas attention is currency, and if people are being denied access to the forms of social capital they earnestly desire then somebody will simply have to pay - possibly in blood! Freedum!!

[pErvinalia]

Who came up with the Twitter covid misinformation policy, Cunt?

[Cunt]

I clipped my answer from upthread, and did overlook the link. Thanks.

De nada.

I remember in the olden times, ads for drugs on US Television had to include lists of potential side-effects for all drugs advertised.

In my opinion it is legitimate to acknowledge the potential harm, not so legitimate to focus on potential harm without acknowledging the extreme rarity of its occurrence. That is simply scare-mongering. The vaccines have proven to be rather effective at preventing severe illness and death. I consider it irresponsible and definitely harmful to try to scare people away from them. To promote adverse reactions without promoting their rarity is also definitely misinformation.

If a government is trying to minimise harm to its citizens (for economic reasons or because it has a constitutional responsibility to promote the general welfare of the people) it has a legitimate interest in taking measures to counter such misinformation. According to the reporting, the Biden administration encouraged Twitter to cooperate by following Twitter's own policy regarding mis/disinformation about COVID. Do you think the administration was out of line to do so?

I guess I do think they were out of line. Especially since they had to sneak around behind closed doors to get it done.

Did the administration happen to get any of their covid decisions wrong? Would it mean they were responsible for lying someone to death, if they did quiet the wrong scientist or physician?

I don't think twitter is fit to make those decisions. I'm not sure ANYone thinks the US intelligence bureaucrats are fit to. Maybe some think Biden is, or Fauci.

Who came up with the Twitter covid misinformation policy, Cunt?

I noticed you didn't say whether you knew who Roth was, or his field of expertise. Was it him? Baker?

[Brian Peacock]

Meh. The point here is to cast anyone who questions the claims as rampant lefties and useful idiots for corporate communism. In a sensible discussion we might want to talk about the amazing amount of wealth and power concentrated in the hands of a few multi-billionaires like Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk and Murdoch, and whether that's good for us, our societies and our democracies. But instead, it seems, we have to be divided into good guys and bad guys and then let people who are clearly emotionally over-invested in that divisive project define who qualifies for what team.

Twitter, Meta, Amazon, Uber and the like aren't shit because some lefties on the board have been oppressing snake oil peddlers and idiots with overactive imaginations and a predisposition for violence, they're shit because they have an amazing amount of power, access to massive amounts of data, phenomenal amounts of capital, and a pathological drive to increase their influence and revenue at any cost - even at the cost of fragmenting the societies from which they draw their wealth and bankrupting the democracies which secure their contracts and property. In other words, everything Cunt and his fellow travellers complain about is basically true - the system is rigged against them, but it's not rigged in favour of the left, it's rigged in favour of billionaires and corporations and the political actors they patronise. Which is just to say that it's basically rigged against everybody, lefties and righties alike. The main difference between the left and the right is that righties believe the right kind of billionaire will make everything great again, whereas the left believe that the main problem is thinking that any billionaire truly has the best interests of ordinary people at heart.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I clipped my answer from upthread, and did overlook the link. Thanks.

De nada.

I remember in the olden times, ads for drugs on US Television had to include lists of potential side-effects for all drugs advertised.

In my opinion it is legitimate to acknowledge the potential harm, not so legitimate to focus on potential harm without acknowledging the extreme rarity of its occurrence. That is simply scare-mongering. The vaccines have proven to be rather effective at preventing severe illness and death. I consider it irresponsible and definitely harmful to try to scare people away from them. To promote adverse reactions without promoting their rarity is also definitely misinformation.

If a government is trying to minimise harm to its citizens (for economic reasons or because it has a constitutional responsibility to promote the general welfare of the people) it has a legitimate interest in taking measures to counter such misinformation. According to the reporting, the Biden administration encouraged Twitter to cooperate by following Twitter's own policy regarding mis/disinformation about COVID. Do you think the administration was out of line to do so?

I guess I do think they were out of line. Especially since they had to sneak around behind closed doors to get it done.

'Sneak around behind closed doors' eh? Do you have anything that indicates the administration actively tried to prevent Twitter from saying anything about the communications? That the administration tried to suppress reporting on this?

Did the administration happen to get any of their covid decisions wrong? Would it mean they were responsible for lying someone to death, if they did quiet the wrong scientist or physician?

Nothing in the Musk reporter's tweets indicates that the administration 'quieted the wrong scientist or physician.' The biggest claim he can make is that they promoted policies (like encouraging vaccination of children) that some other countries did not. If you have any specific allegations, nobody is stopping you from airing them here. Present them or just keep insinuating. In the latter case, I will assume that you don't have anything of substance.

I don't think twitter is fit to make those decisions. I'm not sure ANYone thinks the US intelligence bureaucrats are fit to. Maybe some think Biden is, or Fauci.

Yeah, it should be up to luminaries like beanie boy and the smirking schmuck Crowder, amirite?

You have a hard-on for Fauci, but I don't think you could make a coherent case against him, any more than your heroes could.

On the other hand, it seems you're fine with harmful disinformation being spread freely without any pushback.

[pErvinalia]

Who came up with the Twitter covid misinformation policy, Cunt?

I noticed you didn't say whether you knew who Roth was, or his field of expertise. Was it him? Baker?

Because I'm not interested in Roth. If you've got a point to make, make it.

[Cunt]

Meh. The point here is to cast anyone who questions the claims as rampant lefties and useful idiots for corporate communism. In a sensible discussion we might want to talk about the amazing amount of wealth and power concentrated in the hands of a few multi-billionaires like Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk and Murdoch, and whether that's good for us, our societies and our democracies. But instead, it seems, we have to be divided into good guys and bad guys and then let people who are clearly emotionally over-invested in that divisive project define who qualifies for what team.

Twitter, Meta, Amazon, Uber and the like aren't shit because some lefties on the board have been oppressing snake oil peddlers and idiots with overactive imaginations and a predisposition for violence, they're shit because they have an amazing amount of power, access to massive amounts of data, phenomenal amounts of capital, and a pathological drive to increase their influence and revenue at any cost - even at the cost of fragmenting the societies from which they draw their wealth and bankrupting the democracies which secure their contracts and property. In other words, everything Cunt and his fellow travellers complain about is basically true - the system is rigged against them, but it's not rigged in favour of the left, it's rigged in favour of billionaires and corporations and the political actors they patronise. Which is just to say that it's basically rigged against everybody, lefties and righties alike. The main difference between the left and the right is that righties believe the right kind of billionaire will make everything great again, whereas the left believe that the main problem is thinking that any billionaire truly has the best interests of ordinary people at heart.

That would sound reasonable, but for the uneven moderation favouring one political side over the other.

Which is a reflection of Roth, and his ideologies. Of course Roth was put there by the owners to get the results they wanted, but that surely wasn't favoring the right. Anyone thinking so would have a lot of convincing to do, considering what Roth himself put out there.

I clipped my answer from upthread, and did overlook the link. Thanks.

De nada.

I remember in the olden times, ads for drugs on US Television had to include lists of potential side-effects for all drugs advertised.

In my opinion it is legitimate to acknowledge the potential harm, not so legitimate to focus on potential harm without acknowledging the extreme rarity of its occurrence. That is simply scare-mongering. The vaccines have proven to be rather effective at preventing severe illness and death. I consider it irresponsible and definitely harmful to try to scare people away from them. To promote adverse reactions without promoting their rarity is also definitely misinformation.

If a government is trying to minimise harm to its citizens (for economic reasons or because it has a constitutional responsibility to promote the general welfare of the people) it has a legitimate interest in taking measures to counter such misinformation. According to the reporting, the Biden administration encouraged Twitter to cooperate by following Twitter's own policy regarding mis/disinformation about COVID. Do you think the administration was out of line to do so?

I guess I do think they were out of line. Especially since they had to sneak around behind closed doors to get it done.

'Sneak around behind closed doors' eh? Do you have anything that indicates the administration actively tried to prevent Twitter from saying anything about the communications? That the administration tried to suppress reporting on this?

Did the administration happen to get any of their covid decisions wrong? Would it mean they were responsible for lying someone to death, if they did quiet the wrong scientist or physician?

Nothing in the Musk reporter's tweets indicates that the administration 'quieted the wrong scientist or physician.' The biggest claim he can make is that they promoted policies (like encouraging vaccination of children) that some other countries did not. If you have any specific allegations, nobody is stopping you from airing them here. Present them or just keep insinuating. In the latter case, I will assume that you don't have anything of substance.

I don't think twitter is fit to make those decisions. I'm not sure ANYone thinks the US intelligence bureaucrats are fit to. Maybe some think Biden is, or Fauci.

Yeah, it should be up to luminaries like beanie boy and the smirking schmuck Crowder, amirite?

At least some, but mainly I was referring to scientists who have a different opinion. If they were silenced, how would you know if suppressing them was the right decision?

But it's twitter and the government bureaucrats who are deciding. Maybe flawlessly. Again, if they censored incorrectly, should they be responsible for killing with disinformation?

You have a hard-on for Fauci, but I don't think you could make a coherent case against him, any more than your heroes could.

I think he comes off like an arrogant prick, but don't need to make a 'case' against him, to dismiss him as an overstuffed government worker, who's memory is worse than mine after smoking a big doobie...

https://nypost.com/2022/11/25/all-knowi ... o-testify/

No American has been more revered by the media in the COVID era than Anthony Fauci, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser and the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Since early 2020, TV and print profiles have deluged Fauci with endless adulation, spurring the sale of Fauci votive candles, Fauci bobbleheads and #trustFauci Twitter hashtags. But Wednesday, Fauci’s mind vanished.

Or at least that’s what he claimed. A federal judge compelled Fauci to answer questions from lawyers suing toreveal the role of “dozens of federal officials across at least 11 federal agencies “ to suppress “disfavored speakers, viewpoints and content on social-media platforms.” That lawsuit is exposing how Biden’s war on disinformation is demolishing Americans’ freedom of speech.

Fauci was deposed on Wednesday by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry. Landry labeled Fauci the “man who single-handedly wrecked the US economy based upon ‘the science, follow the science.’” But “over the course of seven hours, we discovered that he can’t recall practically anything dealing with his COVID response,” Landry said.

So Fauci is “omniscient except during depositions”?

But with Elon hinting that Fauci should be prosecuted, perhaps there will be something more significant than an old man's failing memory when questioned under oath.

On the other hand, it seems you're fine with harmful disinformation being spread freely without any pushback.

I'm fine with plenty of pushback, but when every social media platform censors in unison, don't you get just a little suspicious?

I know I do. Maybe Fauci will (when not under oath) remember why we should take his serious advice seriously.

But getting back to the laptop example, only pErv has bothered to say what he believed about it (thanks, @pErvinalia) but he was wrong when he thought it was suppressed over dick pics. Did you know what was up with it? Why do you think it was handled as it was, across several social media oligarchies?

[L'Emmerdeur]

I suggest you answer specific posts in specific replies, rather than lumping them into a single post. Unless you are trying to make it more difficult to carry on a discussion that is, in which case carry on. I'll stop bothering.

If you have any specific allegations, nobody is stopping you from airing them here. Present them or just keep insinuating. In the latter case, I will assume that you don't have anything of substance.

At least some, but mainly I was referring to scientists who have a different opinion. If they were silenced, how would you know if suppressing them was the right decision?

But it's twitter and the government bureaucrats who are deciding. Maybe flawlessly. Again, if they censored incorrectly, should they be responsible for killing with disinformation?

So, nothing. Fine by me.

You have a hard-on for Fauci, but I don't think you could make a coherent case against him, any more than your heroes could.

I think he comes off like an arrogant prick, but don't need to make a 'case' against him, to dismiss him as an overstuffed government worker, who's memory is worse than mine after smoking a big doobie...

Your opinion of Fauci is irrelevant, as is your dismissal of his work. If you don't have anything to present other than this hack piece from the New York Post--

https://nypost.com/2022/11/25/all-knowi ... o-testify/

No American has been more revered by the media in the COVID era than Anthony Fauci, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser and the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Since early 2020, TV and print profiles have deluged Fauci with endless adulation, spurring the sale of Fauci votive candles, Fauci bobbleheads and #trustFauci Twitter hashtags. But Wednesday, Fauci’s mind vanished.

Or at least that’s what he claimed. A federal judge compelled Fauci to answer questions from lawyers suing toreveal the role of “dozens of federal officials across at least 11 federal agencies “ to suppress “disfavored speakers, viewpoints and content on social-media platforms.” That lawsuit is exposing how Biden’s war on disinformation is demolishing Americans’ freedom of speech.

Fauci was deposed on Wednesday by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry. Landry labeled Fauci the “man who single-handedly wrecked the US economy based upon ‘the science, follow the science.’” But “over the course of seven hours, we discovered that he can’t recall practically anything dealing with his COVID response,” Landry said.

So Fauci is “omniscient except during depositions”?

Then there's nothing further to discuss.

But with Elon hinting that Fauci should be prosecuted, perhaps there will be something more significant than an old man's failing memory when questioned under oath.

Nice that you are on a first-name basis with that wealthy shit-poster, but his 'hinting' is based on lies. I know that you really despise fact-checking. Too bad.

On the other hand, it seems you're fine with harmful disinformation being spread freely without any pushback.

I'm fine with plenty of pushback, but when every social media platform censors in unison, don't you get just a little suspicious?

I know I do. Maybe Fauci will (when not under oath) remember why we should take his serious advice seriously.

When the science is clear (the vaccines work) and social media deny a platform to those who spread misinformation and disinformation ('plenty of pushback'), I have no problem with that. It is their right to make such decisions and not that it matters, but I happen to agree with those decisions.

But getting back to the laptop example, only pErv has bothered to say what he believed about it (thanks, @pErvinalia) but he was wrong when he thought it was suppressed over dick pics. Did you know what was up with it? Why do you think it was handled as it was, across several social media oligarchies?

As I understand it they were highly suspicious of the known and ongoing trolling/disinformation coming from Russia intended to help Trump, and were cautious about being taken in by yet another instance of the same.

Regarding the 'laptop,' it appears that the drive supposedly containing a clone of the laptop has been tampered with repeatedly. But keep the faith, dear fellow. As you say, 'any day now.'

[pErvinalia]

Meh. The point here is to cast anyone who questions the claims as rampant lefties and useful idiots for corporate communism. In a sensible discussion we might want to talk about the amazing amount of wealth and power concentrated in the hands of a few multi-billionaires like Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk and Murdoch, and whether that's good for us, our societies and our democracies. But instead, it seems, we have to be divided into good guys and bad guys and then let people who are clearly emotionally over-invested in that divisive project define who qualifies for what team.

Twitter, Meta, Amazon, Uber and the like aren't shit because some lefties on the board have been oppressing snake oil peddlers and idiots with overactive imaginations and a predisposition for violence, they're shit because they have an amazing amount of power, access to massive amounts of data, phenomenal amounts of capital, and a pathological drive to increase their influence and revenue at any cost - even at the cost of fragmenting the societies from which they draw their wealth and bankrupting the democracies which secure their contracts and property. In other words, everything Cunt and his fellow travellers complain about is basically true - the system is rigged against them, but it's not rigged in favour of the left, it's rigged in favour of billionaires and corporations and the political actors they patronise. Which is just to say that it's basically rigged against everybody, lefties and righties alike. The main difference between the left and the right is that righties believe the right kind of billionaire will make everything great again, whereas the left believe that the main problem is thinking that any billionaire truly has the best interests of ordinary people at heart.

That would sound reasonable, but for the uneven moderation favouring one political side over the other.

It might seem political, unless you consider that one side of the divide has an aversion to facts and critical thinking, and a propensity for wacko conspiracy theories. Should the reasonable not push back against the stupid?

[macdoc]

It might seem political, unless you consider that one side of the divide has an aversion to facts and critical thinking, and a propensity for wacko conspiracy theories. Should the reasonable not push back against the stupid?

In a nutshell...

TIred argument about presenting "both sides" .....always trotted out by the AGW deniers/anti-science crowd
....not much any more ....there are no "alternative facts".
AGW is real and we're responsible.

Opinions without a back up in factual evidence are noisome emissions of a weak, ill thought position.

[Svartalf]

I'll present both sides of the argument
on one hand, is the theory of evolution, which, although not really intuitive, get a lot of verification from the geological record, and constatations of recent events

on the other is creationism, which is rooted in superstitious belief in the supernatural and the literal truth of a book, which, while claiming divine inspiration, is not even able to keep its own record straight, and that is a big hunk of balderdash.