What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Folly of Pandemic Censorship (4 Viewers)

LawFitz

Footballguy
The Folly of Pandemic Censorship

As the latest anti-Substack campaign shows, more and more people are forgetting why free speech works

- Matt Taibbi

Every one of these campaigns revolves around the same larger problem: would-be censors misunderstanding the basic calculus of the freedom of speech.

Even in a society with fairly robust protections, as ours once was, the most dangerous misinformation is always, without exception, official.

Whether it’s WMDs or the Gulf of Tonkin fiasco or the missile gap or the red scare or the twenty-year occupation of Afghanistan, the worst real-world disasters always turn out to be driven or enabled by official falsehoods. In the case of Afghanistan (and Iraq, and Vietnam before both), the cycle of war disaster was perpetuated by a sweeping, organized, and intricate system of official lying, about everything from the success of missions to the efficacy of weaponry to the political devotion of supposed allies. The only defense against these most dangerous types of deceptions is an absolutely free press.
I’ve used Substack to show the amazingly diverse range of speech deemed unallowable on private platforms, from raw footage of both anti-Trump protests and the January 6th riots, to satirical videos no one had even seen yet, to advocates and detractors of the medication Ivermectin, to a Jewish tweeter’s pictorial account of Hitler’s life, to a now proven-true expose about the president’s son. The latter case is on point, because the widely distributed story that the New York Post’s Hunter Biden report was Russian disinformation was the actual disinformation. If the fact-checkers are themselves untrustworthy, and you can’t get around the fact-checkers, that’s when you’re really screwed.

This puts the issue of the reliability of authorities front and center, which is the main problem with pandemic messaging. One does not need to be a medical expert to see that the FDA, CDC, the NIH, as well as the White House (both under Biden and Trump) have all been untruthful, or wrong, or inconsistent, about a spectacular range of issues in the last two years.

NIAID director Anthony Fauci has told three different stories about masks, including an episode in which he essentially claimed to have lied to us for our own good, in order to preserve masks for frontline workers — what Slate called one of the “Noble lies about Covid-19.” Officials turned out to be wrong about cloth masks anyway. Here is Fauci again on the issue of what to tell the public about how many people would need to be vaccinated to achieve “herd immunity,” casually explaining the logic of lying to the public for its sake:

"When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, 'I can nudge this up a bit,' so I went to 80, 85."

We’ve seen sudden changes in official positions on the efficacy of ventilators and lockdowns, on the dangers (or lack thereof) of opening schools, and on the risks, however small, of vaccine side effects like myocarditis. The CDC also just released data showing natural immunity to be more effective in preventing hospitalization and in preventing infection than vaccination. The government had previously said, over and over, that vaccination is preferable to natural immunity (here’s NIH director Francis Collins telling that to Bret Baier unequivocally in August). This was apparently another “noble lie,” designed to inspire people to get vaccinated, that mostly just convinced people to wonder if any official statements can be trusted.
This is the central problem of any “content moderation” scheme: somebody has to do the judging. The only thing worse than a landscape that contains misinformation is a landscape where misinformation is mandatory, and the only antidote for the latter is allowing all criticism, mistakes included. This is especially the case in a situation like the present, where the two-year clown show of lies and shifting positions by officials and media scolds has created a groundswell of mistrust that’s a far bigger threat to public health than a literal handful of Substack writers.
Censors have a fantasy that if they get rid of all the Berensons and Mercolas and Malones, and rein in people like Joe Rogan, that all the holdouts will suddenly rush to get vaccinated. The opposite is true. If you wipe out critics, people will immediately default to higher levels of suspicion. They will now be sure there’s something wrong with the vaccine. If you want to convince audiences, you have to allow everyone to talk, even the ones you disagree with. You have to make a better case. The Substack people, thank God, still get this, but the censor’s disease of thinking there are shortcuts to trust is spreading.


Only the most extreme situations should even remotely be considered when looking to supersede our First Amendment. Covid-19 isn't that. Never was. #### censorship.

 
YouTube, Facebook and Twitter banning people for repeatedly violating the terms of service they agreed to when joining is not a 1st Amendment issue.

 
YouTube, Facebook and Twitter banning people for repeatedly violating the terms of service they agreed to when joining is not a 1st Amendment issue.
It is when it's being suggested strongly by our government for them to do it. 

 
If the government tells them who to censor. Yes

And I agree the government should nit even be saying it at all.
That's what is happening here. 

“This not just about what the government can do,” he (U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy) emphasized, “this is about companies and individuals recognizing that the only way we get past misinformation is if we are careful about what we say and use the power that we have to limit the spread of misinformation.”

 
That's what is happening here. 

“This not just about what the government can do,” he (U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy) emphasized, “this is about companies and individuals recognizing that the only way we get past misinformation is if we are careful about what we say and use the power that we have to limit the spread of misinformation.”
He is not telling someone who to censor. The government is not censoring them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He is not telling someone who to censor. The government is not censoring them.


You seem hung up on the Govt doing the censoring. When AWS, Google, Apple and Twitter are collectively de-platforming voices and the Govt is doing nothing to stop it, despite their oligopoly on public discourse and dissemination of information, then it's essentially/effectively the same as a classical 1st Amendment violation - even if you could make a legal case that it isn't.

Either way, it's a dangerous and very slippery slope when so many in our society call for canceling and de-platforming voices as you and so many others on these boards repeatedly do. Extreme shame on you for even thinking that way. It's un-American. It's totalitarian. It's disgusting.

 
You seem hung up on the Govt doing the censoring. When AWS, Google, Apple and Twitter are collectively de-platforming voices and the Govt is doing nothing to stop it, despite their oligopoly on public discourse and dissemination of information, then it's essentially/effectively the same as a classical 1st Amendment violation - even if you could make a legal case that it isn't.

Either way, it's a dangerous and very slippery slope when so many in our society call for canceling and de-platforming voices as you and so many others on these boards repeatedly do. Extreme shame on you for even thinking that way. It's un-American. It's totalitarian. It's disgusting.
Well...in order for it to be a 1st amendment issue...yeah, Im a bit hung up on the government being involved.

Youtube cannot violate your 1st amendment rights.  You have no first amendment right to continually post misinformation on Youtube.  If you are posting videos to Youtube, you agree to their terms of service.  If you violate them (like Bongino did as an example), you face consequences of that.  That is not a 1st amendment issu.

And I don't really care if you shame me for thinking those companies have a right to protect their product from the blatant misinformation that has been prevalent the past several years.  It isn't unamerican...not at all.

Why not have an issue with people posting knowingly false information over and over and over again in order to make a buck?  To me...that is disgusting.

 
Why not have an issue with people posting knowingly false information over and over and over again in order to make a buck?  To me...that is disgusting.


Because the definition of false/dis/mis-information keeps shifting. And you know what causes it to shift (i.e. to trend toward truth)?... Dissenting voices. If they are wrong, debate them - don't try to silence them.

 
When the US surgeon general is suggesting that tech companies use their power to stop "misinformation", I'd say that's the government getting involved. 
A.  I agree he should not even be suggesting it.

B.  I don't agree that is the government telling them who to censor...but to watch what they do.  Its still not great, but does not arise to the point of a 1st amendment issue at that point.

 
A.  I agree he should not even be suggesting it.

B.  I don't agree that is the government telling them who to censor...but to watch what they do.  Its still not great, but does not arise to the point of a 1st amendment issue at that point.
But you can agree that it's a dangerous direction to be headed. 

 
I don't agree that is the government telling them who to censor...but to watch what they do.  Its still not great, but does not arise to the point of a 1st amendment issue at that point.


We have laws to protect the public from monopolistic/oligopolistic malpractices regarding market manipulation. We should have similar protections when it comes to freedom of speech. Would you agree with that?

 
Because the definition of false/dis/mis-information keeps shifting. And you know what causes it to shift (i.e. to trend toward truth)?... Dissenting voices. If they are wrong, debate them - don't try to silence them.
No...not really.  Bongino knows the crap he posts is likely false.  Yet...he keeps going.  Same with others and why Trump himself was banned from Twitter.  Years of lies he knew were lies.

Youtube and Twitter are not there to debate people.  You sign the terms of service...you abide by it.  Its their platform...their rules.  Just like here.  If I violate Joe's terms of service...I face consequences.  I don't have a consitutional right to post here.  They have no constitutional right to spread their propaganda on Youtube or Twitter or wherever.  

Dissenting voices is one thing...just being flatout untruthful just to disagree...far different. 

In a simple way to say it...they should be better.  Be truthful rather than expecting these companies to offer them places to freely spread their lies.

 
We have laws to protect the public from monopolistic/oligopolistic malpractices regarding market manipulation. We should have similar protections when it comes to freedom of speech. Would you agree with that?
You don't have a right to post on youtube.  Companies do not have to give you a free platform for which to voice said speech.  They just don't.

 
 That's fine. But everything we've been experiencing for the last 2 years has been a slippery slope. 
Sure...people toeing that line pushing lies further and further...til now they continue to get busted.

Seems odd to keep complaining about the platforms...and not the people spreading knowingly false information over and over.

 
You don't have a right to post on youtube.  Companies do not have to give you a free platform for which to voice said speech.  They just don't.


So when YouTube/Twitter de-platforms dissenting opinions and AWS de-platforms alternative platforms that's okay because they are private companies, despite their oligopoly over the industry?

Once companies become too large and especially when they collude to negatively impact (in this case crushing free speech) society, we have a history in this country of rallying against them to change their behavior - even to the extreme of forcefully breaking them apart. I'm sure you know the history, but are being obtuse to suit your agenda. 

 
So when YouTube/Twitter de-platforms dissenting opinions and AWS de-platforms alternative platforms that's okay because they are private companies, despite their oligopoly over the industry?

Once companies become too large and especially when they collude to negatively impact (in this case crushing free speech) society, we have a history in this country of rallying against them to change their behavior - even to the extreme of forcefully breaking them apart. I'm sure you know the history, but are being obtuse to suit your agenda. 
Yes..we see an agenda by calling things "dissenting opinions" rather than what they really are.  Lies.

 
Seems odd to keep complaining about the platforms...and not the people spreading knowingly false information over and over.


You and your ilk don't seem to understand that controlling false information is best done crowd-sourced. Discourse, dialogue, debate among the MASSES - that is how truth rises, and we have MULTIPLE examples of exactly that during the last two years. Had we censored voices as you seem to support, so many truths would still be hidden from us. What you are supporting is draconian and has never worked in the history of humanity. It has ALWAYS led to or been a feature of tyranny. Stop hiding behind technicalities of free speech laws and think instead about the intended spirit of those laws. Our media oligopoly crushing free speech certainly doesn't fit.

 
You and your ilk don't seem to understand that controlling false information is best done crowd-sourced. Discourse, dialogue, debate among the MASSES - that is how truth rises, and we have MULTIPLE examples of exactly that during the last two years. Had we censored voices as you seem to support, so many truths would still be hidden from us. What you are supporting is draconian and has never worked in the history of humanity. It has ALWAYS led to or been a feature of tyranny. Stop hiding behind technicalities of free speech laws and think instead about the intended spirit of those laws. Our media oligopoly crushing free speech certainly doesn't fit.
It is not up to Youtube or twitter to Debate anyone.  this is false information. 
In a time where fact checking is called biased and an actual POTUS had spokespeople  saying things were alternative facts…debate isn’t really an option.  Because no amount of debate or being shown the actual facts is enough.  Too many still will believe and spread completely false information to push their agenda.  And some of that information is actually dangerous to public health.

Its not a technicality of the law…its the flat out law.  The law is not about forcing youtube to let people post whatever they want.

 
Because no amount of debate or being shown the actual facts is enough.  


This is the most dangerous misinformation of all. This is how tyrants think and how they justify attacks on freedom of speech, which is exactly what is happening in this country, regardless of how you and others try to legally characterize this issue. It's scary to see this train wrecking in slow motion. It's surreal to read posts like yours and feel your energy through the lines. I'm highly confident that if your way of thought prevails, we are doomed as a nation. I'm also optimistic that at some point the tide will turn and you will see the error of your ways. Until then, I hope everyone else who reads this takes a moment to stop and think about the ramifications of this issue, because they are huge.

 
Sure...people toeing that line pushing lies further and further...til now they continue to get busted.

Seems odd to keep complaining about the platforms...and not the people spreading knowingly false information over and over.
Who decides it's "false information"?

And if it's false, you prove it false with your own voice. You don't silelnce theirs. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No...not really.  Bongino knows the crap he posts is likely false.  Yet...he keeps going.  Same with others and why Trump himself was banned from Twitter.  Years of lies he knew were lies.

Youtube and Twitter are not there to debate people.  You sign the terms of service...you abide by it.  Its their platform...their rules.  Just like here.  If I violate Joe's terms of service...I face consequences.  I don't have a consitutional right to post here.  They have no constitutional right to spread their propaganda on Youtube or Twitter or wherever.  

Dissenting voices is one thing...just being flatout untruthful just to disagree...far different. 

In a simple way to say it...they should be better.  Be truthful rather than expecting these companies to offer them places to freely spread their lies.
You can add the infowars guy to your list.  

 
This is the most dangerous misinformation of all. This is how tyrants think and how they justify attacks on freedom of speech, which is exactly what is happening in this country, regardless of how you and others try to legally characterize this issue. It's scary to see this train wrecking in slow motion. It's surreal to read posts like yours and feel your energy through the lines. I'm highly confident that if your way of thought prevails, we are doomed as a nation. I'm also optimistic that at some point the tide will turn and you will see the error of your ways. Until then, I hope everyone else who reads this takes a moment to stop and think about the ramifications of this issue, because they are huge.
Nothing I stated was misinformation.  Look at any thread about presidential debates...how many thought Trump, spewing lies and namecalling "won the debate".  There is no public debate anymore.  When you have people at the highest level pushing "alternative facts" as if that is something.  And no...not giving that a platform to spread is not an attack on free speech.

My way of thought is what has been the way of thought in this country since its founding.  IMO...much more dangerous to let lies go unchecked.  To effectively force private companies to allow people to spread lies and misinformation.  That is tyrannical at its core.  There is no error of my ways.  The ramifications are simple.  If you want to use a free service to reach out to millions and millions of people...you abide by the rules set forth by that service.  If you cannot do that, you no longer have the ability to use that service.  Seems pretty simple and logical.

 
Who decides it's "false information"?

And if it's false, you prove it false with your own voice. You don't silelnce theirs. 
The facts do...this isn't very hard.  Do you think Dan Bongino, as an example, was spreading true information?

What people like him have posted or spread was proven false...which is why they were shown the door.  Their platform...if they prove it false or can show it...its done.  This is not a difficult concept.

His voice isn't silenced.  He is free to find another place that accepts lies to pedal it.  They have zero obligation to allow him on their platform.

 
So when YouTube/Twitter de-platforms dissenting opinions and AWS de-platforms alternative platforms that's okay because they are private companies, despite their oligopoly over the industry?

Once companies become too large and especially when they collude to negatively impact (in this case crushing free speech) society, we have a history in this country of rallying against them to change their behavior - even to the extreme of forcefully breaking them apart. I'm sure you know the history, but are being obtuse to suit your agenda. 
For the record, AWS is nowhere near part of an oligopoly. AWS is the largest managed services company, but there are literally hundreds of places to host web applications online.

I do support investigating the large tech companies and breaking them up if needed though. The power they have is too much.

 
Nothing I stated was misinformation.  Look at any thread about presidential debates...how many thought Trump, spewing lies and namecalling "won the debate".  There is no public debate anymore.  When you have people at the highest level pushing "alternative facts" as if that is something.  And no...not giving that a platform to spread is not an attack on free speech.

My way of thought is what has been the way of thought in this country since its founding.  IMO...much more dangerous to let lies go unchecked.  To effectively force private companies to allow people to spread lies and misinformation.  That is tyrannical at its core.  There is no error of my ways.  The ramifications are simple.  If you want to use a free service to reach out to millions and millions of people...you abide by the rules set forth by that service.  If you cannot do that, you no longer have the ability to use that service.  Seems pretty simple and logical.


You're spinning circles, dude. Your argument is weak as ####. Hopefully, more reasonable people will see through it enough to save us from your kind.

 
I do worry the government is getting to involved in this. It is a slippery slope that I don't want to go down. As far as companies doing it, I don't care. If they censor too much, then people will leave those platforms for new platforms. There are plenty of alternative platforms popping up to accomodate those that are unhappy with Twitter or YouTube. That's the way the free market is supposed to work. It helps that I don't use Facebook or Twitter.

 
I do worry the government is getting to involved in this. It is a slippery slope that I don't want to go down. As far as companies doing it, I don't care. If they censor too much, then people will leave those platforms for new platforms. There are plenty of alternative platforms popping up to accomodate those that are unhappy with Twitter or YouTube. That's the way the free market is supposed to work. It helps that I don't use Facebook or Twitter.
Exactly...I don't want government involved in it.  Not telling them who to censor...and not telling them they cannot enforce their terms of service.

This push to allow any and all misinformation no matter what seems a very strange thing to me.

 
Yes..we see an agenda by calling things "dissenting opinions" rather than what they really are.  Lies.
lmfao at dissenting opinions.

Holy smokes the cognitive dissidence of these people.  Essentially the only people who have died from covid since the vaxxes are the unvaxxed.  That's a fact.

Man oh man oh man.

 
I do worry the government is getting to involved in this. It is a slippery slope that I don't want to go down. As far as companies doing it, I don't care. If they censor too much, then people will leave those platforms for new platforms. There are plenty of alternative platforms popping up to accomodate those that are unhappy with Twitter or YouTube. That's the way the free market is supposed to work. It helps that I don't use Facebook or Twitter.
This being said, I do think twitter and YouTube should back off a bit. I'd rather they focused on removing abusive or obscene material rather than misinformation.

 
Because the definition of false/dis/mis-information keeps shifting. And you know what causes it to shift (i.e. to trend toward truth)?... Dissenting voices. If they are wrong, debate them - don't try to silence them.
What causes it to shift in many cases is further research and the discovery of new information.  As knowledge of a once unknown subject increases, so does the necessity to alter the  reaction to address the new information.

As to your point about debate... pfffttt. This "debate" you speak of is an exercise in futility when ideology and politics are involved. Empirical evidence exists that completely obliterates many of these beliefs. And it doesn't make a difference.  Research has shown that strongly held beliefs are likely to become more deeply held when presented with opposing facts.

 
What causes it to shift in many cases is further research and the discovery of new information.  As knowledge of a once unknown subject increases, so does the necessity to alter the  reaction to address the new information.

As to your point about debate... pfffttt. This "debate" you speak of is an exercise in futility when ideology and politics are involved. Empirical evidence exists that completely obliterates many of these beliefs. And it doesn't make a difference.  Research has shown that strongly held beliefs are likely to become more deeply held when presented with opposing facts.


My God. Listen to what you are saying. No debate allowed. No dissent allowed. Only 'expert' narratives may be presented. WTF, dude. Pffftt to public debate and discourse. Really?!? That is what you believe? How ####### sad. How ####### un-American. Your post is disgusting and frankly disturbing.

And yet I am very glad you made it. Just as I appreciate all freedom of speech, I appreciate yours. Even if I think it's utter tripe. Carry on with your bad moon. Speak up. Be heard and seen for who and what you are.

 
@LawFitz what is your solution? Do you think there should laws against banning people?


I dunno. I'm not a govt intrusion guy at my core - I don't generally like the idea of govt mandating private businesses, but that certainly happens across our modern economic landscape in so many instances. Perhaps we more deeply consider breaking up the Amazon/Google/Apple/Facebook/Twitter media oligopoly. The problem with that idea is with YouTube/Twitter/Facebook, in particular, their business models operate best as large-scale network economies. Meaning they actually serve the public best when they are a single hugely dominant player that operates THE network that everyone is on for that type of communication (e.g. video, long-form social media and short-form SM). But with that kind of power over public discourse, there needs to be checks on what these primary societal platforms can impose over the masses. And that's where as a society we need to be very careful in not allowing them to become the sole arbiters of what is deemed truth. No easy answer, for sure, but to me, the least of evils is to simply allow everyone free speech - including the crazies and the liars. No more of this ivory tower bull####. Unlike some (many?) around here I actually have faith in people's ability to discern and give rise to truth if all of it is up for debate and discussion. The opposite extreme is MUCH more dangerous IMO.

 
My God. Listen to what you are saying. No debate allowed. No dissent allowed. Only 'expert' narratives may be presented. WTF, dude. Pffftt to public debate and discourse. Really?!? That is what you believe? How ####### sad. How ####### un-American. Your post is disgusting and frankly disturbing.

And yet I am very glad you made it. Just as I appreciate all freedom of speech, I appreciate yours. Even if I think it's utter tripe. Carry on with your bad moon. Speak up. Be heard and seen for who and what you are.
Get off your high horse. I didn't say debate and dissent aren't allowed. They should be encouraged. 

But you would seem to be an excellent example of ideology outweighing data. You've been shown so many times how vaccines have been a giant benefit to society. And you continue to call that FACT into question, under the guise of discussion. You have a strongly held belief, and despite stating you are open to having them questioned,  and you are "just looking for the truth", your opinion has not changed one iota. This is the same mindset that Trump supporters embrace so fervently.  Showing facts, and discussing them, makes no difference.  I'm not against discussion.  I'm against engaging in fruitless discussion, which describes the vast majority of interaction between me and a specific subset of the political/ideological spectrum. 

 
Meaning they actually serve the public best when they are a single hugely dominant player that operates THE network that everyone is on for that type of communication (e.g. video, long-form social media and short-form SM).
Completely disagree with this statement. It works best for the company owning that network, but not the users. I don't have a limited amount of apps/websites that I can use.

It does help people speading misinformation though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Completely disagree with this statement. It works best for the company owning that network, but not the users. I don't have a limited amount of apps/websites that I can use.


It's an esoteric business-economics concept: Network Effect

That's what I was referring to. With network economies, the value of the service goes up to each user as more users join the network. I agree with you that otherwise we are better off if we have access to many competing apps/websites.

 
Hey folks, the sky is blood red and aliens are invading!

I don't care that the sky is blue and there are no aliens. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's an esoteric business-economics concept: Network Effect

That's what I was referring to. With network economies, the value of the service goes up to each user as more users join the network. I agree with you that otherwise we are better off if we have access to many competing apps/websites.
That doesn't mean that it works best with one network because networks are not mutually exclusive. It just means you have to have a critical mass on one network before people find enough value in it. For example: every person in the world could be using WhatsApp and Signal at the same time. There is no reason to settle on one texting network.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What if cigarette companies started advertising that not only are cigarettes not bad for you, they're good for you.  That they don't give you cancer, they defeat cancer.  Then bots and other people keep bombarding people with these "facts".  Then there's a noticeable uptick in people that smoke, including children.  Should they do anything about it?

 
What if cigarette companies started advertising that not only are cigarettes not bad for you, they're good for you.  That they don't give you cancer, they defeat cancer.  Then bots and other people keep bombarding people with these "facts".  Then there's a noticeable uptick in people that smoke, including children.  Should they do anything about it?
LawFitz would be arguing about censorship. 

 
That doesn't mean that it works best with one network because networks are not mutually exclusive. It just means you have to have a critical mass on one network before people find enough value in it. For example: every person in the world could be using WhatsApp and Signal at the same time. There is no reason to settle on one texting network.


Is the value of Twitter as a platform to individual users higher or lower if everyone is on it vs. only half the population?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top