META (Facebook) Banning Conservatives over their opinions.....

[dblack]

Sometimes there is only one solution that doesn't involve throwing out the whole system.

That's never the case. And again, going with "no solution" is better than throwing out the First Amendment.

 

[OKTexas]

I don't believe he ever said that they're worthless - not even now. They reduce the spread of transmission, which has been well documented. What is true now is that the virus has evolved to become much more infectious. In fact COVID is believed to be the most infectious virus that we know of. Even so, it has been documented that proper masks (N95, KN95, KF94, etc) are effective at reducing transmission, particularly if more people are wearing them. They cannot actually prevent an infection from occurring, and I don't believe anyone ever claimed they could.



I don't know where you're getting this information from but as far as I know this is just not scientifically supported. Keep in mind that *a* study that shows it could be effective doesn't necessarily establish that it is. That's why researchers try to replicate findings. So many things can go wrong in a research project, not because people are trying to scam us but because a finding that might be established in one setting with one group of people may not be generalizable to the entire population. They could also be analyzing their data wrong. And so forth. But no, ivermectin and HCQ are not generally recognized as effective at preventing or treating COVID.



Dr. Fauci has disclosed his finances as he is required to do by law. He does not own individual stocks; he invests in other things and he is a millionaire by virtue of his years of salaries, royalties, speaking engagements, and so forth, but most people who reach his level of acclaim aren't exactly poor. He's 81 - he's had time to accumulate wealth. There is no evidence to support what you posted above.

Disclosures Show Dr. Fauciâs Household Made $1.7 Million In 2020, Including Income, Royalties, Travel Perks And Investment Gains

Last night, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall received Dr. Anthony Fauci’s unredacted FY2020 financial disclosures.

www.forbes.com

It's false because nobody credible ever made that claim - I have no idea where you're getting your information but everything you've posted so far is factually incorrect. I think you should evaluate the sources of your information and find better ones.



The evidence on masking is tricky, but most conventional science believes that the greatest benefit derived from masking is when *everyone* wears the right kind of mask, the right way, and preferably in areas with proper ventilation and that aren't too crowded. The topic of whether masks are or aren't effective is a tricky one because it depends on a multitude of factors. If, for example, you are the only one wearing a mask and you happen to enter a place where there's high transmission, poor ventilation, and most people aren't wearing a mask, then true, masks are a lot less effective in that scenario. That's why there are mask mandates - to get everyone to comply and help each other out. Even if you get infected, science suggests you're probably at least marginally better off wearing a mask than without, as it reduces the viral load. I mean, why not take any advantage you can get?



Again, it depends. If by "social distancing" we mean 4 feet in an enclosed area with lots of COVID-positive people and poor ventilation and no masks, then no, social distance doesn't work. But social distance was recommended as part of a series of public health guidance. The best kind of social distancing is to stay away from people altogether unless it's necessary but nobody was going to recommend that into perpetuity.



This is the big one, and it's debatable. Keeping kids at school while there's an ongoing pandemic is/was risky, but it's true that there's real harm done by keeping kids isolated. It is likely that some mistakes were made and that perhaps schools could have been open more than they were. But that's Monday morning quarterbacking.

CDC walks back claim that vaccinated people can’t carry COVID-19

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has walked back the claim made by its director that vaccinated people don’t carry the coronavirus. CDC chief Rochelle Walensky said earlier this week …

nypost.com

I'll say.

Those are fairly substantial failures for an agency whose primary role is to protect public health. And I won't be the first to assert that funding doesn't have much to do with it.

It was politics, not staffing shortages or a hesitancy to release non-peer-reviewed studies or even bureaucratic failures, that motivated CDC leadership to repeat questionable or inaccurate information -- whether on the origin of the virus, its mild impact on children, or the data about efficacy of masks and vaccines.

Opinion: CDC finally admits it botched COVID response, but it still hasn’t addressed the cause: politics | Chattanooga Times Free Press

It's been said that admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

www.timesfreepress.com

And answer this, why would any federal employee get royalties? We paid them to do the work, if royalties are due, they should go to the treasury.

.

 

[multivita-man]

CDC walks back claim that vaccinated people can’t carry COVID-19

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has walked back the claim made by its director that vaccinated people don’t carry the coronavirus. CDC chief Rochelle Walensky said earlier this week …

nypost.com

But that doesn't mean that vaccines are worthless. You've not proven your claim.

I'll say.

Those are fairly substantial failures for an agency whose primary role is to protect public health. And I won't be the first to assert that funding doesn't have much to do with it.

I agree the CDC failed in many regards, but we're not gonna agree on the premise of that opinion so I'll save that for another thread.

It was politics, not staffing shortages or a hesitancy to release non-peer-reviewed studies or even bureaucratic failures, that motivated CDC leadership to repeat questionable or inaccurate information -- whether on the origin of the virus, its mild impact on children, or the data about efficacy of masks and vaccines.

Opinion: CDC finally admits it botched COVID response, but it still hasn’t addressed the cause: politics | Chattanooga Times Free Press

It's been said that admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

www.timesfreepress.com

I'm not going to take seriously the Times Free Press, whatever that is. I've read extensively about COVID from researchers and listened to commentary from medical professionals. On occasion I've been duped by "professionals" who turned out to be quacks (See "Dr" John Campbell).

And answer this, why would any federal employee get royalties?

Answering your question directly, since I don't know what he gets royalties on, I honestly don't know. I assume it's because they're involved in the development of patents and publications, I reckon. That's probably written into their contracts. That's also how they are recruited and tenured by academic institutions (like NIH). Frankly, I'm not really a fan of the practice either, but it's a legal way to make money.

We paid them to do the work, if royalties are due, they should go to the treasury.

I sympathize with that argument, but that's the academic system and I assume he's complied with all of the ethical reporting requirements.

 

[OKTexas]

But that doesn't mean that vaccines are worthless. You've not proven your claim.



I agree the CDC failed in many regards, but we're not gonna agree on the premise of that opinion so I'll save that for another thread.



I'm not going to take seriously the Times Free Press, whatever that is. I've read extensively about COVID from researchers and listened to commentary from medical professionals. On occasion I've been duped by "professionals" who turned out to be quacks (See "Dr" John Campbell).



Answering your question directly, since I don't know what he gets royalties on, I honestly don't know. I assume it's because they're involved in the development of patents and publications, I reckon. That's probably written into their contracts. That's also how they are recruited and tenured by academic institutions (like NIH). Frankly, I'm not really a fan of the practice either, but it's a legal way to make money.



I sympathize with that argument, but that's the academic system and I assume he's complied with all of the ethical reporting requirements.

So you're saying the director of the CDC lied because of the source that quoted her. You're not too bright, are ya? BTW, both Fauci and xiden lied when they said, if you're vaccinated you couldn't get or spread the virus. They were aware of an abundance of "breakthrough cases" when they said it.

.

 

[MinTrut]

If they are going to edit content they should lose their Sec. 302 exemption, so people can sue their ass off. If they lose a few multimillion dollar law suits they'll stop that shit.

.

Yes.

 

[MinTrut]

Well there's Truth Social and Gab, right? Use those maybe?

Those who maintain public space, even if that public space is privately owned or leased (as with Target's privately owned/leased dedicated public space discussed in this thread), must abide by certain non-exclusionary conduct.

So your suggestion is a poor one.

 

[MinTrut]

So if some obnoxious boozer gets bounced from a bar they should just sue the bar because bar was just enforcing its own rules?

It depends.

I thought conservatives were pro-business.

Avoiding lawsuits is often good business.

 

[dblack]

Those who maintain public space, even if that public space is privately owned or leased (as with Target's privately owned/leased dedicated public space discussed in this thread), must abide by certain non-exclusionary conduct.

Nope.

But rest easy, the Dems agree with. Your fantasy of a totalitarian government is in the works!

 

[MinTrut]

So this site should also lose the same exemption as I have had my post edited/removed.

Is this site under discussion?

Does it operate in the same manner as Facebook and under the same restrictions/obligations, and is it thus relevant?

How long do you think this site will continue to operate under such conditions?

See above.

 

[MinTrut]

Another 50 post from you in this thread, and you as of yet backed up/supported a single claim you have made.

That is rather telling

And yet Target maintains these spaces for public use - go figure.

 

[MinTrut]

Yep. Everyone on Facebook signed up for Facebook. That’s how you get into their club.

Not a club.

 

[MinTrut]

The whole "FCC owns the airwaves" thing begs to differ.

There's a lot of willful ignorance on these issues.

 

[MinTrut]

Then the left bitches and tries to get them shut down via their hosting or equipment vendors.

And it's not the same, and you know it.

Liberals, not the left, but yes.

 

[MinTrut]

there sure as hell is, you just like the fact large corporations are on your side.

Exactly.

But the fascism of liberals is total; their hivemind worships it as the cult they are.

 

[dblack]

Exactly.

But the fascism of liberals is total; their hivemind worships it as the cult they are.

You sound jealous.

 

[MinTrut]

If the Left were being shut down by Facebook or some other platform, the Left would be calling for the Government to break it up. Similarly, about a decade ago, the Left saw the rise or resurgence of AM Talk Radio as a medium for Conservatives. The Left sought to tap into that with their “Air America” programming to go against Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. it was an epic failure.

So, because the Left could not win in an arena for battle of ideas, they turned to the antiquated Fairness Doctrine from the 1940s when there were only a few media outlets as a tool to get the Government to marginalize Conservative media.

Liberals, not the left.

The left is censored as much - or more - by liberal Big Tech as conservatives.

 

[MinTrut]

Keep sucking that corporate dick.

Even if you hadn't asked, the vacuum would continue.

 

[MinTrut]

If the authoritarian Left gets to use social media to promulgate their hate speech and lies, we should get to also, though I would not characterize what we say that way: ours is the right side, being suppressed by political pressure. The Left is engaged upon the Big Lie technique day in and out, and they want to prevent any reply. They sure have been studying Mein Kampf.

The left is censored as much, or more, by liberal Big Tech as are conservatives.

 

[MinTrut]

I am ok with it because they are a private company and can do whatever the fuck they desire.

I have been put in FB jail once, that was for comparing a picture of Trump on the balcony of the White House to that of Mussolini on the balcony.

So, take you whiny ass and go fuck yourself. If you do not like how FB does things, DO NOT FUCKING USE IT

Dedicated public space owned/leased by private companies like Facebook or Target may not be so exclusionary.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Is this site under discussion?

Does it operate in the same manner as Facebook and under the same restrictions/obligations, and is it thus relevant?

All Social Media is under discussion as what you do to one company will apply to them all.

And yes, this site does same manner as Facebook