Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's what a discussion is. If someone 'pushes misinformation as fact,' any person is free to refute it in the next post. Some people would like to prevent certain views from seeing the light of day. That's a horrible idea. Have you ever heard the phrase "if they'll do it with ya, they'll do it to ya?" The second the establishment narrative is no longer served by facts, those facts will be labeled 'misinformation' and disappear.
Much of the information that I see is debatable, on some level. Someone posts a brand new study, or article, claiming that it conclusively shows X. But upon further inspection, things aren't that simple. That isn't 'pushing misinformation as fact.' That's just normal discussion.
And where do we draw the line when it comes to misinformation? Should a Doctor be able to make a fact based claim that the tanning beds he sells cure cancer? Or the Vitamin D he sells will protect you from dying from COVID? Or should we just let the quacks be allowed to profit of their false claims?
The problem is when the definition of “misinformation” becomes too broad, like the policy on YouTube. They define ANY disagreement with the CDC or WHO to be “misinformation”. In this case, a lot of legitimate dissent gets effectively censored unless its author is able to find another, equivalent platform, which is difficult given the “oligopoly” possessed by Big Online Media.
The type of misinformation prompted by some of the conspiracy theorists is absurd and I support a private company’s right to take it down. But some safeguards should be in place so that you are allowed to say things other than parroting the exact recommendations and interpretations of the governmental bodies and powers that be.
I am all in favor of scientocracy, but sometimes the pendulum swings too far the other way and it turns to technocracy.
yes, where do we draw the line on what is misinformation and what isn't. I think all claims made should cite a source. Too many people just throw fact based claims out there with absolutely no sources.
Shame on anyone believing verbatim what they read most places online, and double shame on anyone who believes verbatim what they read on a forum. Caveat Emptor....we are ALL consumers when it comes to what we read and believe online. None of this, "Oh you must be lying - where is your source?" bull$hit. It's up to each of us to do oute own homework and decide for ourselves what we will consider as truth.
Journalism 101 from over 40 years ago taught me to rightly follow the words of Poe: Believe nothing you hear and only one half that you see. And even that saying has been debated thru the years as to who said it first.
When someone makes a fact based claim that affects someone's health or livelihood we have the right to call them out on their bogus claims.
Every other day the media publishes some story about a prominent antivaccine politician/ Media/activist/ socacial media personality who has died or is gravely ill from covid. These sourced articles are from professional journalist working for respected publishers or networks with editorial review boards. I am not allowed to post or link to these articles.
But if I posted the covid vaccine won’t work because covid is from space monkeys from Venus and linked to a source that would be okay. I could do that all day everyday
Why is that?
I have not seen anything like that happen here..but in fact the reverse is true. The media is cherrypicking stories about unvaccinated people dying from COVID, but never say a word about people who have been left severely disabled, injured, or even died after receiving the vaccines.
just because 726 people are listed in VAERS as having died within x weeks of getting the shot, does NOT mean that 726 died because of the shot
Well we'll never know the truth..will we ?
I would take VAERS with a side of caution. The CDC has already purged that database twice of covid related deaths. We have no idea how many were adversely affected/died because of the vaccines.
It's not in the government's best interest to talk about that in light of them pushing this vaccine so hard.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
