If you’re paying any attention at all, you already have a list of things in your head that the public health authorities got wrong (and sometimes still get wrong) about Covid.
That doesn’t bother me. It was a new thing, on a scale they hadn’t dealt with before, and they were learning. Fine. You can’t expect them to get it right from the start. You have to learn and adapt.
The troubling thing has been the suppression of other ideas and explanations — because those other ideas are part of the mechanism for learning and adapting!
Remember when the “lab leak” hypothesis was a crazy conspiracy theory? People were banned from social media and had their careers ruined for daring to suggest it.
The suppression of public discussion by a cabal of Big Tech, academia, media, and government has been an absolute calamity. Things that should have been pursued were not pursued because they didn’t fit with the talking points.
That is not how science or a free society works.
Who is going to fix this, and how? I’m not sure, but they better do it soon.
Yet, the hypothesis that Covid came from a Chinese lab arose from academia and has been highlighted in the media for a long time now. Here are Bret Weinstein and Heather Heyting, a couple of them dirty academics, putting forth the hypothesis on a very popular show about a year ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMGWLLDSA3c
Accordingly, if there is such a cabal, it is a grotesquely weak one. Apparently they keep kicking each other in the teeth.
You’re behind on your facts. Weinstein and Heying were demonetized by YouTube because of their statements about Covid. IOW, their videos are still up — so YouTube can make money on them — but “them dirty academics” don’t get any of the money.
But you miss the point. Them dirty academics did manage to get their message out through the them dirty media folks. What a piss-poor cabal!
I’m not sure I follow your point.
Google, YouTube, and Twitter have all engaged in significant suppression of nonapproved thoughts on Covid, via many mechanisms (blacklisting, demonetization — or however it’s spelled, warnings, and simple account deletion). Far from being some secret “cabal”, they’ve been open about it, and have described their actions as helping to suppress misinformation about important health matters.
Is your argument that any suppression which isn’t absolute doesn’t really count, and so can’t be complained about? That seems a strange and binary way to think about anything, much less how we can keep conversations open.
I mean, we could change the blog software here so that every post ended with “And shut up, Robin, nobody cares what you think,” and surround every one of your replies with warnings, pointing out your many errors in the past and reminding everyone that you’re wrong most of the time.
Such an action wouldn’t even prevent you from posting *here*, much less via any of the countless other venues you have access to, but I think it would be hard to argue this wasn’t deliberately trying to suppress your perspective, even though it might be described as a weak attempt to do so. Such suppression on a random blog is of no great consequence. On the world’s largest platforms, however, ISTM it’s plausibly more of a concern.
I am afraid that DSM is not following the discussion carefully enough. Greg only pointed out the video under discussion in which Weinstein and Heying got demonetized on YouTube, but their videos were still left in tact. So they don’t make any money on it. That happens to academics constantly. Nothing new there. But there was apparently no attempt to suppress their message. I saw it when it was first posted and there was no warning about misinformation. I also saw a lot of the same sort of stuff since then. The media chided Trump for calling Covid “Kung-Flu” and his sycophantic press secretary told them in a press conference that lots and lots of Them Dirty Liberals have been saying that the virus came from China. Of course she missed the point (deliberately) that the grievance was that Trump engaged in a racist outburst with his nomenclature, not that he was saying that the virus came from China. By that point they were all in on that claim about the origin of the virus. The cabal was apparently eating itself alive displaying info that went against them. It is obviously an extremely inefficient cabal.
I’m still not sure why you’re so blase about suppression of academic discussion, whether it be preventing you from being paid for things which take time and energy, the addition of misinformation tags, etc. When you tax things, you get less of them, and that includes conversations which help determine the truth.
But maybe it’s that you’ve defined ‘suppression’ so narrowly. Is there a term you’d prefer which encompasses limiting your access to services, adding warning labels, magnifying ‘fact checks’ which are themselves simply opinions, and outright banning of stories? Something which would cover ad bans, Twitter warnings, account removals, link banning (e.g. Biden’s laptop), etc.
That seems pretty clearly a type of suppression to me, but if you’ve got some hangup with the word, I’m willing to use another phrase. More concerning is your shrug.
There is a certain about of suppression in a very broad sense. But the left are also subjected to it. I was only addressing the issue in the context of Greg’s initially defined perimeters in the context of the current thread. That’s all that can be realistically achieved at present instead of a blanket invitation to chase millions upon millions of red herrings.
See her claim (from 2:56 on) that the media keeps repeating that Covid came from China, whereas the objection from the press was that “Kung-Flu” is a racist label. Please note that this video was posted as far back as June 22, 2020.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TlvC562RQE
Google, YouTube, and Twitter have all engaged in significant suppression of nonapproved thoughts on Covid …
That is clear. Anyone who doubts it is simply living in a different reality.
Indeed and the circumstances of this suppression needs to be taken into account.
On both sides.
Besides, academics get ripped off all the time. Publishers especially do that. Youtube is no exception, as they continue to profit from crazies from all sides and even from more sober people. That has nothing to do with a cabal. It is merely profiteering on a grand scale.
Maybe you picked the wrong thing to highlight for some people.
I guess I am a dirty lib according to RWNJs. But I think the wokeness is getting crazy and big tech just enables and justifies it. My unscientific observations are that a RWNJ is more likely to get cancelled or suspended than others. Even if it’s “oh, we made a mistake, we’ll un-suspend your account now…”, it seems like the RWNJs have to fight for it.
People should be able to say “queers suck” or “christians suck” and he’re the reasons why. You certainly can’t insist that the swimmer on the Penn State women’s swim team with a cock and balls is a man or even “biologically a male” without getting in trouble somewhere. You can’t say, “there’s no such thing as a CIS woman. There may be women and transgender women, but a so called ‘CIS’ woman is just a woman, and a transgender woman is not a woman…maybe a transgender woman, or a ladyboy, but not a ‘normal woman’ with no other adjectives attached.”
I really don’t understand why some people have a hard time seeing that. To me it’s obvious.
It seems like the social media platforms also want the advantages of being solely a platform (like AT&T, or the Bells), but also be a publisher without the risks of being a publisher.
For instance, if someone slanders another person on the phone, AT&T or the Bells (or Verizon, Sprint, etc) cannot be held liable because they are just the platform/medium. If the Tulsa World slanders someone, they can be held legally liable and be sued.
The fact that Facebook or Twitter censors people means that they are in effect a publisher and not just solely a platform/medium. So, if they are censoring COVID misinformation, they could censor slander/libel and prevent it. So, if they don’t prevent it, then they should be legally liable for slander/libel that happens on their platform.
When Zuckerturd or Jack go before Congress, they just whine that they are just platforms/mediums and should be protected…but then they censor/edit too. They want all the benefits and none of the risks of being both providers and publishers.
Yes, that’s the whole Section 230 thing. It’s a huge problem that Congress should have solved a long time ago.
Here’s what we know:
*No one knows the exact origin of Covid-19 (so everyone has been and continues to speculate).
*Early in the virus’ spread, healthcare professionals made an educated guess and put it on record that they didn’t believe Covid originated from a lab leak.
*The educated guess was taken as fact by some big tech companies. As such, they created policies that treated the “lab leak” content as conspiracy and removed, banned or labeled that content as such.
*As the virus progressed, government intelligence/officials and healthcare professionals began reevaluating Covid origins and started considering the “lab leak” theory as plausible.
*As those authorities adjusted their views, big tech began to change their views and made their policies more lenient relative to the “lab leak” theory.
Overall, there was indeed a premature dismissal of the lab leak theory and policies were put into play to minimize the spread of that theory.
There’s at least two ways of viewing these actions: 1) a cabal of academia, big tech, media and government were intent on stripping citizens of their Constitutional free speech rights. 2) faulty assumptions were used as a basis for creating practices that were intent on minimizing misinformation about a deadly novel virus that could trigger fear and irrational responses…with an unintended consequence of wrongfully labeling/silencing speech. Which of the two views one subscribes to is likely a result of how one views such authorities and their political affiliation.
That said, there’s some lessons to be learned. When dealing with critical novel circumstances such as this, it’s best to consider all plausible theories and only dismiss those that can be done with absolute certainty. Relative to big tech, it’s better to suggest/warn of questionable content versus banning…unless it’s absolutely certain the content is “fake news”. As well, authorities should be held accountable for their actions. Yet, unless negative intent can be proven, it’s better to give the benefit of the doubt to errors made by them, rather than demonize them. Call out errors and create safeguards to avoid repeating them.
I agree with a lot of what you say here, but I don’t think you’re taking the coordinated suppression of speech seriously enough. Here’s what I want.
* Any company with revenue above some amount — maybe $1 billion / year — should not be allowed to discriminate against a person because of the content of their speech. They should be held to the same rules that restrict government actions. The most obvious practical fallout from this would be that Big Tech companies would not be allowed to ban, shadow ban, or demonetize anyone.
* Universities and other academic institutions must commit themselves to free and open discussion and inquiry, and cannot fire or silence people because of their views.
QUOTE: I agree with a lot of what you say here, but I don’t think you’re taking the coordinated suppression of speech seriously enough.
I’m taking it quiet seriously…we just don’t totally agree. I don’t view this as a coordinated cabal intent on discrimination and robbing citizens of their constitutional rights. In this case, they erred and that needs to be called out and corrected…without unnecessary authoritarian government means.
QUOTE: Universities and other academic institutions must commit themselves to free and open discussion and inquiry, and cannot fire or silence people because of their views.
Allegedly a version of this is already in the current practices of universities and academic institutions. Yet, I’d say there should be exceptions if some speech is deemed threatening or harmful. As there are legal limits on free speech, the same should apply here.
https://policy.uncg.edu/university-policies/free_speech/
QUOTE: Any company with revenue above some amount — maybe $1 billion / year — should not be allowed to discriminate against a person because of the content of their speech. They should be held to the same rules that restrict government actions. The most obvious practical fallout from this would be that Big Tech companies would not be allowed to ban, shadow ban, or demonetize anyone.
There’s already a legal remedy for intentional demonization (defamation). Yet, if a patron has willingly agreed to abide by the policies of private company, I believe the company has the right to determine content on their platform…especially if they deem that content harmful. If a patron is banned for violating company policy, they are FREE to go to a different platform or start their own. As long as a private company’s practices are legal, I don’t think the government has a right to dictate content practices. For me, that’s unnecessary authoritarian government overreach, especially since the patron has other options to express their views, if they pull themselves up by the bootstraps and do it.
I should clarify that I don’t believe this cabal is coordinated in the sense that they have meetings and plans and strategies. It’s coordinated because they’re all drinking from the same fountain.
Since it’s a public health crisis, it seems reasonable they’d all be getting information from the same source…healthcare experts. Nothing untoward about that. Unfortunately, in this case the healthcare professionals weren’t as circumspect as they should have been and it contributed to the current circumstances.
Healthcare experts are not unanimous in their take, though, and the ones who dissent (and I’m not talking about the fringy ones, I’m talking about the ones who have done nothing to discredit themselves) are automatically ruled out as not being credible *because they don’t agree with the others.* It’s not expertise that’s being looked to, but conformity. So the well they’re drinking from isn’t “healthcare experts,” it’s “healthcare experts who hold certain views.”
QUOTE: The troubling thing has been the suppression of other ideas and explanations — because those other ideas are part of the mechanism for learning and adapting!
If suppression of other ideas and open debate are a blight on free speech, how is it that conservatives sponsor actions such as banning “certain” books in schools/libraries and sponsoring potential laws that make it illegal for schools and businesses to cause some to feel uncomfortable when teaching history? What happened to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?”
Texas –a San Antonio, Texas, school district has removed over 400 books from library shelves, works included on a list that a conservative state lawmaker has said may be inappropriate for children.
Florida –Bill, S.B. 148, would prevent school educators from teaching subjects that could make students feel responsible for historical wrongs based on their race, sex or national origin.
Ummm… I don’t know what those books were in TX. But be clear, some books are inappropriate for children.
Hell, let’s teach Calculus in first grade because failure to do so is an attack on free speech.
Ummm….yeah. Indeed, some books are inappropriate for children. Yet, the key questions that needs to be answered is “who” gets to determine what’s inappropriate….the government, school administration or parents? As well, “what” is the criteria for determining what is considered inappropriate?
Many of the books in question are about race and sexuality. Some are nonfiction; others are novels. They span several decades in American publishing. They include Pulitzer Prize winners and classics.
QUOTE: Repairing free speech and open debate
Seems that’s one of the objectives of Donald Trump’s new TRUTH app. Trump and truth in the same sentence…that’s an oxymoron within itself. But, I digress.
Trump has previously stated… “I created TRUTH Social and TMTG to stand up to the tyranny of Big Tech.” While the platform is pitched as a free and open communication service that encourages “honest global conversation”, the terms of service agreement prohibits users from certain behaviors.
TRUTH TERMS:If you provide any information that is untrue, inaccurate, not current, or incomplete, we have the right to suspend or terminate your account and refuse any and all current or future use of the Service (or any portion thereof). We may accept, reject, or remove Interactive Content in our sole discretion.
In concept, isn’t that the same as other social media platforms…having service terms that govern how it’s to be used? So, if there’s a violation, the platform has the ability to ban. In fact, it allegedly Truth has already exercised it’s “ban” authority (within 24 hours of launch). Matt Ortega, a web developer, tried to create an account called “@DevinNunesCow” — but tweeted that his account was banned by Truth Social due to “social community guidelines violations.” So, how and free and open will Truth be? If a user violates the guidelines and banned by the platform, will that be considered censorship? It will be interesting to see how they balance free speech/open debate with violations of their guidelines.
It certainly sounds bad, but as you know, lawyers insist in certain T&Cs as protection. The question will be how it is enforced.
But in general, I want new laws to protect free speech on all platforms, including this one. It’s absurd that a Tech Titan, or the former President, or anyone else, gets to decide what can and cannot be said.
QUOTE: It certainly sounds bad, but as you know, lawyers insist in certain T&Cs as protection. The question will be how it is enforced.
I don’t think we have to wonder, given we already have an example. It appears the platform wasn’t too happy about a user selecting a parody name and banned the account. So is that censorship?
QUOTE: But in general, I want new laws to protect free speech on all platforms, including this one. It’s absurd that a Tech Titan, or the former President, or anyone else, gets to decide what can and cannot be said.
Free speech is not an absolute right and there are limits. Social media should have reasonable like limits. For instance, TRUTH has the following:
*Harass, intimidate, or threaten any of our employees or agents engaged in providing any portion of the Service to you.
* Interactive Content should not contain profanity, or abusive or racist, language;
* You may not post any false, unlawful, threatening, defamatory, harassing or misleading statements;
*Post offensive or sexual content on the Site or App, including but not limited to:
a. Sexual content or language;
b. Content that includes sexual activity, sexual intercourse or any type of sexual act;
c. Any content that portrays or suggest explicit sexual acts or sexually suggestive positions or poses;
d. Sexually suggestive (explicit or vague) statements, texts or phrases; or
e. Content in which sexual acts are requested or offered, including pornography, prostitution, sugar babies, sex trafficking or sexual fetishes.
Well, they’ve created a new app, and basically told him it’s Twitter.
The Repugs should build an oval office and tell him it’s the White House and he can rule from there.
Indeed, it does look like an indigo Twitter.
As for the White House (WH) idea, I suspect they feel they don’t need to do so. According to some, he’s overdue to be “reinstated” and return to the real WH before the next election.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/591633-17-percent-see-path-to-reinstate-trump-before-next-election-poll
Florida rejects 41% of new math textbooks, citing critical race theory among its reasons. How far will conservatives push this sort of censorship while proclaiming to be advocates of free speech? Or, is free speech now defined as only speech they like?
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2022%2F04%2F17%2Fus%2Fflorida-math-textbooks-critical-race-theory%2Findex.html&data=04%7C01%7C%7C5b6c920910bb461fc18408da209c05c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637858151728498170%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=2OSFUmr86vesFaCYYtenOHtqkmQuXyZVJD%2B%2Feal5H0U%3D&reserved=0
Where does “free speech” reside in the context of public school textbooks that are targeted to children and paid for by the taxpayer?
The question is what now constitutes free speech (in the colloquial sense). Despite being constitutional, we see some conservatives rail against private industry because they can’t say all they desire publicly on a private platform. Ironically, on their so-called “free” platforms, they too have limits. Yet, I digress. Still, they fight rigorously to limit some speech and open debate in schools. We even see some starting to burn books. Some don’t want parts of actual history to be taught. For all the hoopla about liberals shutting down speech at colleges, we see the same behavior from conservatives. For instance, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a progressive Democrat, was heckled and largely prevented from conducting a planned public question-and-answer session at Whittier College. Hecklers wearing hats with the slogan, “Make America Great Again,” shouted insults and largely prevented Becerra from being able to answer audience queries.
Again, it calls into question, what is the meaning of free speech (colloquially speaking)…especially when conservatives who allegedly advocate for it try to limit it when they don’t like certain content?
Seems conservatives only wants “free speech” on their terms. Recently, Republican appointed judges found Florida’s social media law unconstitutional. The appeals panel ruled tech companies’ actions were protected and that Facebook, Twitter, TikTok and others are engaged in constitutionally protected expressive activity when they moderate and curate the content that they disseminate on their platforms.
“Put simply, with minor exceptions, the government can’t tell a private person or entity what to say or how to say it,” said Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, in the opinion. “We hold that it is substantially likely that social media companies — even the biggest ones — are private actors whose rights the First Amendment protects.”
So, in this case, the right is wrong!
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/23/1100831545/appeals-court-florida-social-media-law-unconstitutional-desantis
Seems “TRUTH” social media is beginning to ban participants for discussion of the January 6 committee hearings. Wait! Isn’t this supposed to be the platform that encourages free speech and “honest global conversation”?
https://www.businessinsider.com/truth-social-users-banned-jan-6-hearings-2022-6
All these platforms should be required by law to post their rules for moderation and to have an appeals process.
QUOTE: All these platforms should be required by law to post their rules for moderation and to have an appeals process.
Actually, most do. Below are some examples…
TRUTH SOCIAL: ANY DISPUTE, CONTROVERSY OR CLAIM YOU HAVE ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THESE TERMS OF SERVICE, A BREACH THEREOF OR YOUR USE OF THE WEBSITE OR THE APP SHALL BE EXCLUSIVELY SUBMITTED AND DECIDED BY BINDING ARBITRATION ADMINISTERED BY THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION (“AAA”).
TWITTER: If you believe your account was terminated in error you can file an appeal following the steps found in our Help Center (https://help.twitter.com/forms/general?subtopic=suspended).
YOUTUBE: If your Google account is terminated or your access to the Service is restricted, you may continue using certain aspects of the Service (such as viewing only) without an account, and this Agreement will continue to apply to such use. If you believe that the termination or suspension has been made in error, you can appeal using this form.
FACEBOOK/META: You can learn more about what you can do if your account has been disabled and how to contact us if you think we have disabled your account by mistake.