Biden Tracker (4 Viewers)

[Farb]

For all the things related to the Biden/Harris Administration and their latest hits and misses

https://www.dailywire.com/news/whit...gedly-sexually-harassing-threatening-reporter

Interesting story, looks like 'only the best people' didn't stop with the new administration.

 

[SaintForLife]

Is Joe going to get in trouble for not reading off of his note cards? What an idiotic thing to say especially for a President.

 

[bdb13]

Is Joe going to get in trouble for not reading off of his note cards? What an idiotic thing to say especially for a President.

Seems.. like not a good thing.

 

[SaintForLife]

It's funny not to hear a peep from the people that have been yelling fascism the last 4 years.

 

[brandon]

It's funny not to hear a peep from the people that have been yelling fascism the last 4 years.

A peep about what?

 

[donato]

Or, another way to look at it is misinformation has gone too far and needs to be cleaned up.

 

[bdb13]

Or, another way to look at it is misinformation has gone too far and needs to be cleaned up.

The whole thing is really a mess and I'm not quite sure what the answers should be.. I do think these type of things really need to be treated with high transparency else it tends toward looking underhanded. Should be made relatively clear imo what type of connections and communications exist between Facebook and Biden admin here and, for instance, what posts they're flagging and to my knowledge it's all been made relatively unclear to this point.

 

[MT15]

They’re trying to stop vaccine disinformation. That’s it, as far as I know.

 

[bdb13]

They’re trying to stop vaccine disinformation. That’s it, as far as I know.

I understand that.

I guess I just have some of the same sort of concerns/questions I'd have if it was the Trump or Obama admins and differing issues.. for me here I'd be curious to see, and I think we should be able to see, what all the Biden administration is flagging as vaccine disinformation (don't think this is a big ask or expectation though like I said maybe I've missed something and can be corrected here). I think some of the comments from the press secretary on this were more broad and overarching in nature than they probably should have been, but I don't quite have fully developed thoughts on it all either.

 

[SystemShock]

It's funny not to hear a peep from the people that have been yelling fascism the last 4 years.

Because we can see the difference between spreading lies (the previous 4 years) and fighting lies that lead to deaths (like the lies the previous 4 years).

 

[DaveXA]

They’re trying to stop vaccine disinformation. That’s it, as far as I know.

They're better off focusing on getting the right information out there. The federal government has limits on controlling speech. I hate that the disinformation is out there, but big government trying to control that speech just reinforces the idea that government is "big brother". It's not the kind of government I'm comfortable with.

 

[DaveXA]

Because we can see the difference between spreading lies (the previous 4 years) and fighting lies that leads to deaths (like the lies the previous 4 years).

Sure, but there are always lies that lead to bad outcomes. I don't have a problem with social media platforms removing posts and content on their own, but when the federal government gets involved, that makes me really uncomfortable. What happens if God forbid Trump gets back in office. What do you think is going to happen after he see the Biden administration getting involved in limiting speech?

I'd rather the government focus on getting the right message out there and let social media platforms do their thing.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

It's funny not to hear a peep from the people that have been yelling fascism the last 4 years.

When Joe incites a mob to attack Congress to disrupt the legitimate counting of electoral votes (and generally perpetuate the blatantly false claim of significant voter fraud) then I'll give more credence to the fascism argument. Until then in 2024, my vote is for whoever runs against Trump be it Joe Biden, you, or a turnip. That's not Trump Derangement Syndrome, that's making the least awful of choices based on the objective facts.

Also, as much as I like Amash, he wimped out by not seeking reelection once he switched to a Libertarian. And, from what I can tell, hasn't announced any other plans to seek office in the immediate future.

 

[bdb13]

They're better off focusing on getting the right information out there. The federal government has limits on controlling speech. I hate that the disinformation is out there, but big government trying to control that speech just reinforces the idea that government is "big brother". It's not the kind of government I'm comfortable with.

Sure, but there are always lies that lead to bad outcomes. I don't have a problem with social media platforms removing posts and content on their own, but when the federal government gets involved, that makes me really uncomfortable. What happens if God forbid Trump gets back in office. What do you think is going to happen after he see the Biden administration getting involved in limiting speech?

I'd rather the government focus on getting the right message out there and let social media platforms do their thing.

Yep, more or less how I feel.

 

[SystemShock]

Sure, but there are always lies that lead to bad outcomes. I don't have a problem with social media platforms removing posts and content on their own, but when the federal government gets involved, that makes me really uncomfortable. What happens if God forbid Trump gets back in office. What do you think is going to happen after he see the Biden administration getting involved in limiting speech?

I'd rather the government focus on getting the right message out there and let social media platforms do their thing.

Is the federal government mandating compliance? If Biden is threatening Facebook like the past administration did, sure, be concerned.

As for "limiting speech", actually, there are limits. Not so long ago, Michelle Carter was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for convincing her boyfriend to commit suicide, and speaking of letting the social media platforms do their thing, she did so via text. It was her speech that convinced Conrad Roy to go into his truck and inhale carbon monoxide until he died.

Should we be outraged about Carter's conviction? Shouldn't she have the freedom to tell mentally ill people to go kill themselves? What if they do? She has as right to her speech, no matter what the people listening do, right?

 

[DaveXA]

Is the federal government mandating compliance? If Biden is threatening Facebook like the past administration did, sure, be concerned.

As for "limiting speech", actually, there are limits. Not so long ago, Michelle Carter was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for convincing her mentally boyfriend to commit suicide, and speaking of letting the social media platforms do their thing, she did so via text. It was her speech that convinced Conrad Roy to go into his truck and inhale carbon monoxide until he died.

Should we be outraged about Carter's conviction? Shouldn't she have the freedom to tell mentally ill people to go kill themselves? What if they do? She has as right to her speech, no matter what the people listening do, right?

I don't know that he's threatening them more than he's encouraging them. If they're not using federal dollars to influence them, and not using legislation to make them act a certain way, then I don't have an issue. But, the words of a President carry a lot of weight and using that influence to produce outcomes in public discourse has to be done carefully imo.

As for the texts of an individual, there has to be a clear direct link that the intent was to cause the death of someone. A general statement saying a certain group of people should off themselves is ultimately unenforceable. So it's not the same thing.

 

[SystemShock]

I don't know that he's threatening them more than he's encouraging them. If they're not using federal dollars to influence them, and not using legislation to make them act a certain way, then I don't have an issue.

Ok, then.

But, the words of a President carry a lot of weight and using that influence to produce outcomes in public discourse has to be done carefully imo.

As a principle, sure. But this particular situation, with a virus that continues to spread and mutate, that already has caused 600,000+ deaths in the U.S. and continues to do so, that has infected 10% of the U.S. population which could have prolonged health issues, that has severely impacted the national economy, that continues to put a strain on healthcare resources...

As for the texts of an individual, there has to be a clear direct link that the intent was to cause the death of someone. A general statement saying a certain group of people should off themselves is ultimately unenforceable. So it's not the same thing.

I don't know that's how it works. Why would there be such a ting as involuntary manslaughter?

 

[DaveXA]

Ok, then.

As a principle, sure. But this particular situation, with a virus that continues to spread and mutate, that already has caused 600,000+ deaths in the U.S. and continues to do so, that has infected 10% of the U.S. population which could have prolonged health issues, that has severely impacted the national economy, that continues to put a strain on healthcare resources...


I don't know that's how it works. Why would there be such a ting as involuntary manslaughter?

I hear you, and I'm open to ideas on how to combat that misinformation when it comes to public health. I don't know that the Administration has necessarily crossed some sort of red line yet, but at the same time, I do think the ramifications of using government resources to combat the misinformation need to be considered as well. I think using those resources to muzzle or ban people on private sector platforms need to be hashed out in a public discourse before doing it. And while it's effectiveness has limits, I tend to think the best method is by getting a clear message out there that debunks the misinformation. It won't change everyone's mind, but the reality is not everyone's mind is open to change.

Maybe there's a scenario I'm not thinking of, but when has anyone been charged with involuntary manslaughter for making uninformed or misguided public claims about a disease?

 

[MT15]

From what I understand, the administration is giving FB examples of posts that it has allowed that are promoting vaccine disinformation. FB is then free to do as it wishes.

I think it’s coming from a dialogue that’s been ongoing. The administration wants FB to do better at getting rid of disinformation, FB says it’s doing everything it can, and the administration comes back with “what about these posts right here”.

Of course, the same people who have no problem with Trump’s and Republicans’ big lies about election integrity and are also at the same time passing laws about what a teacher can say in their classroom have twisted it so they can point fingers.