Biden Tracker (1 Viewer)

The moose

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,362
Reaction score
1,219
Age
52
Location
New Orleans
Offline
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.
Yep but it shure is gonna take mountains of fed dollars to pay the hospital bills that coronavirus misinformation is gonna cost.

And yes they are both are gonna have the cost of life. One was directed an one individual the others are just a byproduct to of free speech? Or is this like yelling fire in a crowded place?

I don't see the problem here. I guess sticking it to the libs by yelling hoax during a pandemic is worth the billions this is gonna cost.

Or do you not see how hoax and fire the same?
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
3,076
Reaction score
2,245
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
Yep but it shure is gonna take mountains of fed dollars to pay the hospital bills that coronavirus misinformation is gonna cost.

And yes they are both are gonna have the cost of life. One was directed an one individual the others are just a byproduct to of free speech? Or is this like yelling fire in a crowded place?

I don't see the problem here. I guess sticking it to the libs by yelling hoax during a pandemic is worth the billions this is gonna cost.

Or do you not see how hoax and fire the same?
Lol.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
3,076
Reaction score
2,245
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
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.
Sure, but how long before the line blurs such that the government uses resources through WH directives to control messaging and public discourse? The shoe is inevitably going to be on the other foot, and if it was bad enough last time, it's going to be that much worse next time.

I don't envy the FBs and Twitters of the world. There's a lot of misinformation out there, and a lot of it is coming from overseas as well as the usual suspects here. But like I stated earlier, I'd rather let them sort it out than getting the government involved. I'm not interested in being the thought police.

Ultimately, people have to educate themselves and do their homework. And we're certainly not the only country dealing with all this.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
7,934
Location
Midwest
Offline
I just now came across a seriously great thread discussing this topic. It is well worth the time it takes to read.
AV = anti-vax


 

SystemShock

Uh yu ka t'ann
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,294
Reaction score
1,439
Location
Xibalba
Offline
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.
We live in a country in which (according to Gallup) 40% of the population believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and don't believe in evolution, 24% don't believe we landed on the moon or are not sure we landed on the moon, 16% believe the election was stolen, and germane to the discussion, 15% believe vaccines are harmful. So I don't know how effective a "clear message that debunks information" regarding covid vaccines is going to even make a dent within a certain significant portion of the population.

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?
I can't think of one off the top of my head, but there's always a first time for everything. Do you remember charged of involuntary manslaughter for urging someone to kill themselves? There was a time when vehicular manslaughter wasn't a thing either.

And it's not like we have had pandemic after pandemic in the instant information age.
 
Last edited:

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
3,076
Reaction score
2,245
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
I just now came across a seriously great thread discussing this topic. It is well worth the time it takes to read.
AV = anti-vax


I read it, and some good points. But the conclusion doesn't really get into the 'how' of it. And therein lies the issue. What does getting them all to work together look like? How does the old paradigm of top down dissemination of information to the public change to address how people consume information through the media they are utilizing today? Easier said than done.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
3,076
Reaction score
2,245
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
We live in a country in which (according to Gallup) 40% of the population believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and don't believe in evolution, 24% don't believe we landed on the moon or are not sure we landed on the moon, 16% believe the election was stolen, and germane to the discussion, 15% believe vaccines are harmful. So I don't know how effective a "clear message that debunks information" regarding covid vaccines is going to even make a dent within a certain significant portion of the population.


I can't think of one off the top of my head, but there's always a first time for everything. Do you remember charged of involuntary manslaughter for urging someone to kill themselves? There was a time when vehicular manslaughter wasn't a thing too.

And it's not like we have had pandemic after pandemic in the instant information age.

15% believes vaccines are harmful actually doesn't seem that bad considering compared to the others. I'd argue that the messaging has been effective enough. You'll always have a percentage that are contrarians no matter what is done. I think good, concise messaging is the best counter to misinformation. People are going to believe sufficiently debunked misinformation because of entrenched world views. But there are limitations to what we can do about it. I'd rather attack the problem in other ways. Businesses are already requiring vaccinations for all of their employees, and that will only increase once the vaccines become fully approved. The vaccines are still designated approved through EUAs, and while I don't agree with detractors, I also get why some people would rather wait until it's fully approved. Once that's done, then the vaccines can be mandated in schools like the others.

Good, concise, and accurate messaging can and does make a dent. It doesn't always feel like it, but it does imo.

To the second point, sure there's a first time for everything. I guess time will tell if something enforceable is implemented to address misinformation. But I'd be surprised if that actually happens.
 

Paul

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2021
Messages
741
Reaction score
259
Location
Potomac, Maryland 20854
Offline
We live in a country in which (according to Gallup) 40% of the population believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and don't believe in evolution, 24% don't believe we landed on the moon or are not sure we landed on the moon, 16% believe the election was stolen, and germane to the discussion, 15% believe vaccines are harmful. So I don't know how effective a "clear message that debunks information" regarding covid vaccines is going to even make a dent within a certain significant portion of the population.
Many also believe there is no difference between a transgender woman and a biological woman. Others refuse to believe in global warning. Others think intelligence G is a myth.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
7,934
Location
Midwest
Offline
This is the problem in a nutshell. FB or Youtube or any social medium company shouldn’t be recommending disinformation to its users. If they don’t want to censor them, fine. Stupid but that’s their right. However, they shouldn’t put them into the algorithms that recommend content to users. Users should have to be actively looking for them. They can easily do this, but I read an interview with a former employee a while back who said once they realized how much these disinfo sites (or racist, or whatever extreme you want to talk about) drove clicks, they decided to leave them all in the algorithms.

 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
3,076
Reaction score
2,245
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
This is the problem in a nutshell. FB or Youtube or any social medium company shouldn’t be recommending disinformation to its users. If they don’t want to censor them, fine. Stupid but that’s their right. However, they shouldn’t put them into the algorithms that recommend content to users. Users should have to be actively looking for them. They can easily do this, but I read an interview with a former employee a while back who said once they realized how much these disinfo sites (or racist, or whatever extreme you want to talk about) drove clicks, they decided to leave them all in the algorithms.


Agree 100% with you there. Good find.

I'd add. If anything, the algorithms should spit out more search results that debunk the misinformation. :scratch:
 
Last edited:

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
7,934
Location
Midwest
Offline
What the crap? What’s this “we” stuff, Tom “friend of Trump” Brady?


The world is upside down between this and the editorial on Newsmax praising Biden’s vaccine efforts.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
7,934
Location
Midwest
Offline
Meh, not funny, IMO.

Okay, maybe a bit funny. Had to get over natural distaste for Brady. (autocorrected to Barfy, lol, I had to go back and change it). 😁
 
Last edited:

B4YOU

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2019
Messages
431
Reaction score
686
Age
41
Location
DC
Offline
What the crap? What’s this “we” stuff, Tom “friend of Trump” Brady?


The world is upside down between this and the editorial on Newsmax praising Biden’s vaccine efforts.
Why is Tom Brady making me like him? It just feels dirty. Here’s a better article: Link

 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom