YouTube Reinstating Creators Banned For COVID-19, Election Content (thehill.com) 225
YouTube's parent company, Alphabet, said it will reinstate creators previously banned for spreading COVID-19 misinformation and false election claims, citing free expression and shifting policy guidelines. The Hill reports: "Reflecting the Company's commitment to free expression, YouTube will provide an opportunity for all creators to rejoin the platform if the Company terminated their channels for repeated violations of COVID-19 and elections integrity policies that are no longer in effect," the company said in a letter to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chair of the House Judiciary Committee. "YouTube values conservative voices on its platform and recognizes that these creators have extensive reach and play an important role in civic discourse. The Company recognizes these creators are among those shaping today's online consumption, landing 'must-watch' interviews, giving viewers the chance to hear directly from politicians, celebrities, business leaders, and more," it added in the five-page correspondence.
Alphabet blamed the Biden administration for limiting political speech on the platform. "Senior Biden Administration officials, including White House officials, conducted repeated and sustained outreach to Alphabet and pressed the Company regarding certain user-generated content related to the COVID-19 pandemic that did not violate its policies," the letter read. "While the Company continued to develop and enforce its policies independently, Biden Administration officials continued to press the Company to remove non-violative user-generated content," it continued. Guidelines were changed after former President Biden took office and urged platforms to remove content that encouraged citizens to drink bleach to cure COVID-19, as President Trump suggested in 2020, or join insurrection efforts launched on Jan. 6, 2021, to overthrow his 2020 presidential win. But the company said the Biden administration's decisions were "unacceptable" and "wrong," while noting it would forgo future fact-checking mechanisms and instead allow users to add context notes to content.
Alphabet blamed the Biden administration for limiting political speech on the platform. "Senior Biden Administration officials, including White House officials, conducted repeated and sustained outreach to Alphabet and pressed the Company regarding certain user-generated content related to the COVID-19 pandemic that did not violate its policies," the letter read. "While the Company continued to develop and enforce its policies independently, Biden Administration officials continued to press the Company to remove non-violative user-generated content," it continued. Guidelines were changed after former President Biden took office and urged platforms to remove content that encouraged citizens to drink bleach to cure COVID-19, as President Trump suggested in 2020, or join insurrection efforts launched on Jan. 6, 2021, to overthrow his 2020 presidential win. But the company said the Biden administration's decisions were "unacceptable" and "wrong," while noting it would forgo future fact-checking mechanisms and instead allow users to add context notes to content.
Oh boy... (Score:4, Informative)
Nice going, YouTube. But call Charlie Kirk a shit-disturbing prick and I betcha the King will demand the death of your channel.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Some keywords can get your video demonetized or hidden from searches. The rules keep changing and are not clear. At the moment mentioning Epstein in the first 10 minutes seems guaranteed to get your video hidden.
Re: (Score:2)
truth is going out of style (Score:2)
Spreading known lies to the detriment of others ought to be illegal. But the politicians would never support such a bill. For too many of them, that's their bread and butter.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to eliminate Section 230 (Score:2)
Google would think twice about telling people to drink bleach if they could be sued by family members of dead bleach drinkers.
Re: (Score:2)
Google would think twice about telling people to drink bleach if they could be sued by family members of dead bleach drinkers.
Maybe, but AI seems to be assisting the Darwin Awards. Idiocracy is inevitable, but I would prefer it to be delayed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. We really need to establish accountability for the likes of Google. Or things will go even more to shit.
Might as well (Score:2)
For every human they banned there are 10,000 AI bots doing worse. YT is quickly becoming irrelevant drivel, and I hope the viewership quits letting Alphabet treating them like "users". Because it's no different from being a drug user/addict.
Misquoted (Score:2)
Ah ... reverse canceling (Score:2)
Is this reverse canceling or just canceling the cancelers. It's almost comical that the folks that used to toss around accusations of canceling are now having parties to celebrate canceling.
This would almost be comical and entertaining if it weren't real life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But you really shouldn't be surprised to see people pleased to see the ones who hurt them getting their comeuppance, ungracious though it may be. But you know what they say about the fairness of turnabout.
To say the obvious... (Score:5, Insightful)
Money Grab (Score:2)
This is just a money grab by reducing their costs in content moderation and reducing their future liability by being able to more strongly claim "We don't approve of that message, we're just hosting the video on behalf of the user". Here's the important bit in the summary, the rest is just corporate fluff:
it would forgo future fact-checking mechanisms and instead allow users to add context notes to content.
Re:Spreading misinformation (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. So it should be legal for them to make that change. It should also inform everyone that YouTube is even less trustworthy than you previously thought. (Unfortunately, it probably won't.)
Alphabutt (Score:5, Insightful)
All opinions are not equal (Score:5, Insightful)
If one person says that bleach is a good way of defeating COVID, while the very, very large majority of doctors and medical scientists say that this is bollocks and that vaccination is the way forward, I am going to follow the medical advice. Similarly, if the same person says, on the basis of something he heard from one other person in his administration, that Tylenol causes autism, against the vast amount of evidence that says there is no link, then I am going to follow the evidence.
If someone rails against "windmills", and calls climate change the biggest hoax in the history of the world, while the 91% (all scientists) to 100% (climate scientists with high levels of expertise, 20+ papers published) agreed human activity is causing climate change, then I am going to accept that anthropogenic climate change is actually occurring.
As the UK minister for health said yesterday, "So I would just say to people watching, don’t pay any attention whatsoever to what Donald Trump says about medicine. In fact, don’t even take my word for it, as a politician – listen to British doctors, British scientists, the NHS".
Re: (Score:3)
Just curious if you were a Biden voter. B
A little difficult for me in that he didn't stand for First Minister of Scotland.
would have seen the dementia problem
I'm not qualified to diagnose people, especially over the Internet. How about you?
Re: (Score:3)
"Just curious if you were a Biden voter."
Just curious if you can even fucking read because the poster is CLEARLY in the UK.
Re:Alphabutt (Score:4, Insightful)
Relax Tom. This decision represents an even playing field for all opinions, but I'm not surprised a German feels the need to reference World War II fascism. Miss the good ol' days?
Lie.
This is a free fire zone for false information, denial of reality and NO burden of proof on the frauds.
The Fascist "R" party is making truth a past tense in America.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Mass-media (and youtube is that) should not be allowed to blatantly support the spread of misinformation. There are other ways though, like they could add warnings or references to actual information. But that would cost money and they are deep into greed these days.
Re: (Score:2)
I sort of agree with you, but the appropriate thing to do is to change the law, not to violate it in the name of "doing what's right". It's true that this would mean amending the constitution, and that's difficult, but they have the legal right to choose what they allow.
OTOH, it would be quite reasonable to deny that they are common carriers if they use editorial judgement as to what posts to allow. That would be an easier approach, and in line with what's been done in the past. I just feel that it's bla
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Mass-media (and youtube is that) should not be allowed to blatantly support the spread of misinformation.
So if the Trump administration decides that Jimmy Kimmel is spreading disinformation, then in your book he's in the right to pressure local TV stations to stop airing Jimmy Kimmel?
The Biden administration made a not so dissimilar effort against the laptop story via the FBI, having them pressure Facebook, Twitter, and if the second link in TFS is to be believed, Youtube as well.
If you want to be all authoritarian like that, at least try to be consistent about it, otherwise you'd be no different from Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
A president is never right to pressure any media. That is not his job. The senile felon just does not understand that. What people like you are to dumb to understand is also that there is something like a "measured response". With you cretins it is always black or white, yes or not, celebrate or fire. In the case of Jimmy Kimmel, he did not actually make a claim about the shooter. He made one about the MAGAs and that one was factually correct. Incidentally, the claims the MAGAs made were direct lies with wh
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Mass-media (and youtube is that) should not be allowed to blatantly support the spread of misinformation. There are other ways though, like they could add warnings or references to actual information. But that would cost money and they are deep into greed these days.
Maybe we could try having an educated population that wouldn't succumb to made up bullshit and believe it's scientifically proven just because some celebrity told them it was? Then this shit could self-filter into the wastebin where it belongs.
Nah, that'd never work. Guess we have to have mommy government protect us from the fact we refuse to grow up and behave like adults.
Re: Spreading misinformation (Score:4, Insightful)
He did not. You are just incapable of understanding English. What Kimmel said fas factually accurate. But there are a lot of MAGAs that DID spread misinformation in this matter. Why did nothing happen to them?
Re: (Score:3)
There is a difference between an "implication" (whether it is a strong one or not is a judgment call) and a direct claim. Incidentally, this is not even an implication. It is a merely factual description of what the MAGAs were in fact doing. So, the MAGAs all made direct claims at a time nothing was really known. Did they get punished for that or even called out?
Re: (Score:2)
And sorry for answering to an AC, I mis-clicked. Please ignore my answer, ACs are not worth my time or attention.
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly are insane in an advanced stage. Your statement nicely shows that you have zero connection to reality left and think everything is about you and you have absolute truth at your disposal.
Re: Spreading misinformation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is called misinformation. The issue is that YOU are unable to fact-check competently.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Everything in Rand "The Klan Lying Shitrag" Seed's post here is a lie. Nothing they said is real and if you look at their posts they have NO experience in medical practice.
Congratulations you toddler-raping subhuman fuck, you've proven what a ChatGPT-written garbage screed is like.
Now kill yourself you worthless fucking toddler-raping sack of shit. NOBODY wants you disgracing our species any more "Randseed." You need to stop fucking breathing NOW you fucking disgusting childraper and grandparent-murdere
Re: (Score:2)
My multiple state medical licenses, almost twenty years of experience, and the lives I've saved might prove otherwise. On the other hand, your reflexive hatred towards anyone who might challenge your distorted worldview speaks volumes. Please get some professional help for your psychopathy before you show up in the news as another deranged shooter.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Removing misinformation is not illegal either. It's common sense.
Unfortunaetly, catering to the king for favors is more profitable.
Re:Spreading misinformation (Score:4, Insightful)
Removing misinformation is not illegal either. It's common sense.
There is nothing easy about identifying what is actually misinformation and what is inconvenient information. For example, until Biden's brains melted on a national TV, concerns over his mental decline were labeled misinformation.
Re:Spreading misinformation (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, until Biden's brains melted on a national TV, concerns over his mental decline were labeled misinformation.
I am not from America, so I do not worship either of its major cults.
That said, you may be making your point in a backwards fashion. While it does seem evident that some language decline under pressure was a thing, I haven't seen any evidence of what most people describe as mental decline. Biden seemed - under normal circumstances - to remember things, and there wasn't any sign of problems with decision-making. I don't mean to imply that he was right to run for re-election and I don't mean to imply that he was right to be president. But I don't think he was senile or suffering from dementia.
He stumbled verbally in interview. That looked horrible. He stepped down to give his party a shot. That's what we really know. The idea that his "mental decline" isn't misinformation - as far as I can tell - is itself misinformation.
That said, there is plenty easy about identifying actual misinformation in a lot of cases. There is - for instance - a several billion sample dataset that reveals that COVID-19 vaccines were - and are - safe, and that what complications can arise are statistically insignificant and almost always lower risk than the disease they vaccinates against. While spreading anti-vaccine misinformation in particular isn't illegal, it skirts around recommending self-harm uncomfortably closely, and that is illegal. Law aside, I don't know that civilization should tolerate muck-rakers.
Re: (Score:2)
Biden's brains melted on a national TV, concerns over his mental decline were labeled misinformation.
Of course, before it occurred or before it was proven true, it was misinformation.
Same as "sinij is dead" is misinformation... for now (eventually at some point you'll die like everyone else). Or saying person/suspect X is a murderer is also misinformation that should be removed, until X is proven guilty of murder, then it's not misinformation anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, until Biden's brains melted on a national TV
You shouldn't have medians falling down into the roadway, median, you know, the metal things that are always, somebody had a great, a great lobbyist, because I've never seen them look good. I've been looking at these things with the little, right?
You never actually cared about mental capability, and melting down on live TV, did you?
Re: (Score:2)
You proved your own point quite well. You weren't good at identifying misinformation. You see no, concerns over his mental decline weren't labelled misinformation. Actual misinformation about his mental decline were labelled misinformation, such as those examples which seemed to show his brain stop during public events carefully cut together to misinform people like you, whereas in reality the full unedited footage showed him listening to people off camera and replying to them.
There were plenty of cases too
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunaetly, catering to the king for favors is more profitable.
Short-term, yes. Long-term, no so much. That is why societies that want a future do not have a kind and do something about misinformation.
Re: Spreading misinformation (Score:2)
Did you miss the part where it was the previous king (Biden admin) that decided to have YouTube take them down or suffer repercussions?
Naw, you knew that, but its OK when Democrats violate peoples 1st amendment rights, amiright?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> Who decides it's misinformation?
Who decides what words mean?
Re: Spreading misinformation (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Spreading misinformation (Score:5, Informative)
Also a private platform's definition of misinformation can not only be imperfect, but they're legally within their rights to remove far more than just misinformation, and could remove content by whatever criteria they please. There are audiophile forums that will remove documentation of attempts at scientific testing. Truth Social will ban you for criticizing Trump or saying things he doesn't like. TwitX will ban you for saying things Musk doesn't like (often things that could pose a risk to his vested interests). There are flat earth forums that will ban you for saying the Earth is round. The only alternative to any of this is the forced speech approach of forcing private parties to host content against their will.
Re: (Score:2)
The only alternative to any of this is to find another platform, or start your own.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Misinformation has a definition. Hint, if someone thinks there is such a thing as alternate facts they can't tell accurate information from misinformation. Of you go now ...
I miss the days when you didn’t have to question the accuracy, integrity, or validity of every-fucking-thing and every-fucking-one. We wonder why people are depressed? This is an insanely exhausting way to live and survive.
Re: Spreading misinformation (Score:2)
Re:Spreading misinformation (Score:5, Insightful)
Who decides it's misinformation?
Quite a few times things which were deemed misinformation back during the COVID times turned out to be different than official sources said (at first or later).
The closest thing I can think of would be the "There are no studies showing that masks are effective when worn by the general public" statements early on when they needed all the N95 masks for medical personnel. But even that wasn't really disinformation; it was just stating the absence of supporting evidence, and later, when supporting evidence appeared, there was no longer a lack of supporting evidence.
There's a difference between being wrong and spreading disinformation. The former requires either knowing that you're wrong or having a mountain of evidence saying that you're wrong, but still saying it anyway. There are definitely some grey areas, particularly in areas related to myocarditis/pericarditis, but there were also a lot of folks spewing stuff way, way on the other side of that grey area. :-)
When such heavy hands occur, especially when the government is pushing it, it makes the act seem extra suspicious, or so I've heard for the last week along cries of fascism.
There's definitely a big difference in my mind between the government pushing industry to not spread claims that it considers to be detrimental to public health and the government pushing industry to not spread claims that it sees as being mean to our current leaders. The former seems way more acceptable to me, in much the same way that regulating commercial speech and licensing doctors are both way less objectionable than regulating political speech.
Re: (Score:2)
The former seems way more acceptable to me
This is only because you haven't through this through. "detrimental to public health" is not nearly as objective as we need it to be. Instead, it is often a substitute to "advantageous to financial interests of a pharmaceutical company". For example, opioid epidemic and false claims that oxy is not addictive.
Re:Spreading misinformation (Score:4, Insightful)
The former seems way more acceptable to me
This is only because you haven't through this through. "detrimental to public health" is not nearly as objective as we need it to be. Instead, it is often a substitute to "advantageous to financial interests of a pharmaceutical company". For example, opioid epidemic and false claims that oxy is not addictive.
Who made claims that oxycontin isn't addictive? The government? No. The manufacturer. The government merely allowed them to do it until their claims were shown to be false.
Spreading claims that would encourage a pandemic to get massively worse by discouraging vaccination falls squarely under "detrimental to public health". At no point were *legitimate* studies that showed safety concerns in any way squashed to favor any company's interest. That's why we know that vector-based vaccines were responsible for a statistically significant number of strokes and heart attacks in otherwise healthy people.
The studies that were squashed were a bunch of very weak, mathematically garbage studies that contained errors so obvious that even I, a non-medical person, could shoot dozens of holes in their methodology. A small number of individuals were behind publishing fraudulent study after fraudulent study, and they kept doing this despite broad consensus that their methodology and their conclusions were pure, unadulterated bulls**t. They did this by publishing in journals significantly outside the areas that were appropriate for the papers, relying on the journals' lack of people with adequate understanding of the subject to shoot it full of holes and recommend not publishing it.
And these folks had a tendency to go on YouTube and spread their bulls**t, using their publication in a "journal" (of physics, social sciences, psychiatry, chiropractic medicine, etc.) to support their absolutely fraudulent claims. YouTube quite literally became a dumping ground for trash science that made the National Enquirer look like respectable journalism by comparison.
It got to the point where my canned response was, "If you are showing me something in a YouTube video instead of a peer-reviewed journal, I automatically assume that what you are saying is pure, unadulterated bulls**t, because out of the roughly one hundred times I have not made that assumption, I have found it to be true every single time. If you want me to read it, write it down, so that at least I can skim it in three minutes and point out why you are wrong without wasting an hour of my time watching your stupid video."
IMO, YouTube was right to crack down on that. When people without medical degrees are basically giving medical advice that contradicts broad medical consensus, this is almost guaranteed to be harming society. And nothing good can come of that. Children dying of measles, smallpox, polio, and other vaccine-preventable conditions is not something we should aspire to. Regardless of whether they have freedom of speech, that doesn't mean companies should be required to be their megaphone. And regardless of whether the government was the group who pointed out how potentially harmful the things they were saying are, the stuff they were saying was still harmful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like misinformation right there, perhaps a ban is in order?
Oh wait... I wasn't advocating for bans nor pushing definitons.
Re:Spreading misinformation (Score:4, Interesting)
Quite a few times things which were deemed misinformation back during the COVID times turned out to be different than official sources said (at first or later).
If the best available evidence indicates X, but you believe Y based on gut feel, then later solid evidence of Y is developed, were you right? Further, should this experience convince you to trust your gut over the best available evidence in the future?
Re: (Score:2)
It is not about being right. It is about having a process that essentially works, even when it sometimes temporarily delivers flawed results. If you are right once, by accident, that is worse than worthless if you think you were right by insight.
Re: (Score:2)
Who decides it's misinformation?
There is this thing called "Science". You may have heard of it, but you obviously never looked at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you are cult member, correct? Because it is really hard to fail reality perception THIS badly without that.
Here is a hint: All you say may be somewhat true, but it is grossly INCOMPLETE. And as soon as you get a reasonably complete picture, all the implications you are trying to push turn into lies.
Re: (Score:2)
Jimmy Kimmel just got pulled off the air for saying something TRUTHFUL
While I do not support censorship of Kimmel, lets not pretend that his claims that CK shooter was MAGA had any truth to it.
Re:Spreading misinformation (Score:5, Insightful)
While I do not support censorship of Kimmel, lets not pretend that his claims that CK shooter was MAGA had any truth to it.
Kimmel didn't make that claim. He said that MAGA people were scrambling to prove that the killer wasn't one of them. And he was right.
Kimmel also said that Trump was mourning Kirk the way a child mourns a goldfish. He was right about that too. When a reporter asked Agent Orange how he was coping after the death of Kirk* he lasted about ten seconds before he started rambling about his new ballroom.
*A man who Trump publicly described as a friend and being like a son to him.
Re:Spreading misinformation (Score:5, Informative)
Kimmel didn't make that claim. He said that MAGA people were scrambling to prove that the killer wasn't one of them.
It takes creative re-interpretation AND unwarranted benefit of the doubt to hear that in what he actually said. I watched the clip, it was clear to me what he meant. Did you watch him?
Let's look at what Kimmel actually said.
We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it.
As you can see, Kimmel did not claim the alleged murderer was part of MAGA. Rather, he said MAGA people were going out of their way to say that he was not part of MAGA. Which may in fact turn out to be true. We don't know for sure yet.
Re: (Score:3)
Also he said thy were trying to score points from it which thy absolutely were.
Re:Spreading misinformation (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, "MAGA people" were not doing any such thing.
MAGA assumed from the outset that he must be far-left, both because it confirmed their own biases and because they didn't want to believe otherwise. They did the same thing with the kid who shot Trump, though he turned out not to really have any political intentions.
What they were doing was mocking the occasional far-left dolt who tried to make the claim that the shooter was from the Right.
It's actually pretty plausible. The alt-right has been pissed at Charlie Kirk for years, especially Nick Fuentes' groypers, who have considered Kirk a race traitor. And there is some evidence that Robinson had sympathy for groypers, though at some point he decided he was gay and probably started to get pissed about Kirk's anti-LGBTQ screeds. Perhaps he shifted left generally, perhaps he remained generally right-leaning except on those issues, we don't know. The only information we have is a vague claim by his family that he had become more political and that he disagreed with them.
And yeah, we do know for sure that the shooter was a far-left nutjob.
We really don't know that for sure. On balance I think he probably had shifted pretty left, but the evidence is ambiguous at best. Maybe we'll learn more, but it's possible we'll never know unless Robinson decides to tell us.
If I had to put money on it, I'd bet that Robinson's politics were pretty muddled and his main reason for hating Kirk was the LGBTQ stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
No. His politics are clearly displayed, and I think you are on some level aware of this. And while at the outset it wasn't entirely clear, it very quickly became so. Once the weapon was found, there was no question.
What you are doing, and Kimmel and others did, was grasp at some very unlikely straws in an attempt to create distance t
Re: (Score:3)
Well, since "the LGBTQ stuff" is political
Is it really? I think it's more personal than political, though in general it gets really fuzzy when political views take aim at individual identity.
and his weapon, ammunition, and recorded communications are covered in far-left political messaging,
His ammunition had obscure internet meme references that are used more by the alt-right than the left, though it's really hard to tell because Internet extremists apply many layers of irony, making it really hard to tell.
No, his political motivations are not very clear.
Oh, and the kid who shot Trump did have political motivations. He shot a presidential candidate!!
Except that Crooks was also tracking events of the Democratic candidates. He wanted to sho
Re: (Score:2)
Jimmy Kimmel just got pulled off the air for saying something TRUTHFUL
While I do not support censorship of Kimmel, lets not pretend that his claims that CK shooter was MAGA had any truth to it.
Just as the massive claims of the other side had no truth to it either because NOBODY has real information at that time. Where they punished for that?
Re: (Score:2)
Kimmel claimed, without any evidence, that Charlie Kirk shooter was MAGA.
No. He didn't. See our exchange a few posts above this.
Re: (Score:2)
You lie. Does that make you feel good about yourself?
Re: (Score:2)
And Jimmy Kimmel did spread factually misinformation
Nope. Listen to his actual words. And then, if you still do not see it, maybe learn English?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Spreading misinformation (Score:2)
So you are ignoring the part where THE BIDEN ADMIN ordered these folks offline? (YouTube already restored accounts that YouTube on its own took down gor violating YouTube rules, the story here is that these are the accounts that DIDN'T violate YouTube policies, the BIDEN ADMIN ordered them shutdown because the BIDEN ADMIN objected to their content.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We all know politicians lie, and that journalists stopped fact checking them long ago.
I think you need to examine which news outlets you consult. Here, these resources may help:
https://adfontesmedia.com/ [adfontesmedia.com]
https://ground.news/ [ground.news]
Maybe this too:
https://www.snopes.com/ [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. But my point was that most journalists do fact-check, even the ones with bias. If they don't, I'd hesitate to call them journalists.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's good to know that "Conservative" now means spreading false COVID-19 claims, as well as election lies. I mean, they literally said that.
It used to stand for fiscal responsibility. Conservatism now means openly embracing lies about a whole host of things.
It's fucking pathetic.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
More than enough millennials voted for the orange shitgibbon. The authoritarian personality is a thing, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
Don’t forget the latest “alternative fact” that tylenol causes autism.
Re: Spreading misinformation (Score:3)
Its just one of those wacky right-wing conspiracies being pushed by Harvard Medical School [harvard.edu] based on a review of 31 clinical studies, 4 of which found no connection, which means 27 studies confirmed the conclusion?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Spreading misinformation is not illegal but any information that directly or indirectly contributes to someone's death should hold the person posting the misinformation culpable in that death.
You can talk about BS like flat earth or God's existence or lack thereof till you're blue in the face, but it won't contribute to someone's death, people know you're a crank already.
But when you start casting blame for X on population or person Y, you're directly contributing to that violence. When you start blaming va
Re: Spreading misinformation (Score:2)
Does "Liable" cover falsely accusing the accused Charlie Kirk killer of being Republican/conservative/MAGA?
Re: (Score:2)
Spreading legal misinformation. (Score:2)
is not illegal, as much as you might not like it, other than certain very narrow circumstances like libel or promoting financial schemes or direct threats.
If tools such as libel and slander are meant to curb the worst of this, then ask why they don’t.
Legal tools for defense need to be adequate and affordable. Otherwise your argument here turns into a dogshit excuse that only applies to the very wealthy. The burden of illegality has gotten expensive by design, coming from the assholes doing illegal shit for profit who know you can’t afford to call them out on that shit behavior legally, and keep doing it because of that very fact.
Re: Spreading misinformation (Score:2)
A TikTok/youtube bleach drinking challenge doesn't need to be illegal for the host to have some common sense and suspend it.
Jesus Christ, weren't we just crying about government enforced CIVILITY by pulling broadcast licenses a minute ago, for Charlie Kirk?
But asking for common sense with bleach drinking advice, that's wrong. Whatever future Darwin awards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Donny Soprano (Score:2)
Re: Like spreading hoaxes? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How was Russian collusion investigation a "hoax" exactly? MAGAs don't seem to know the meaning of the word, just echo their cult hero verbatim.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You should seek help. Delusions this strong are not good.
Re: (Score:2)
but because they agreed to enforce Democrat's political views while they were in power
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
I can track down a link to the "Twitter f
Re: (Score:2)
That's a quote, not a citation.
I can track down a link to the "Twitter files" as well.
What prevented you from providing a link to what you just posted? Did it come from a shit source you knew wouldn't be accepted?
Re: (Score:2)