high school xc coach wrote:
supposedly this is the tweet that made it happen.
https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/08/alex-berenson-twitter-ban.jpg?quality=90&strip=all
Yikes that’s it….
high school xc coach wrote:
supposedly this is the tweet that made it happen.
https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/08/alex-berenson-twitter-ban.jpg?quality=90&strip=all
Yikes that’s it….
It’s sad that Rojo doesn’t believe in vaccines
colorunner123 wrote:
I don't think it's healthy for democracy for a small handful of tech companies to decide what we can and can't discuss on the Internet.
This is where capitalism and democracy clash. Do we want privatized media or not? Because that's what we have. I find it ironic that the people who complain the most about this are the same people who bash socialism.
I think it's a good thing in the long term. People will get fed up with the media being controlled by a few special interests and some alternate form will emerge. It might take a while but it will happen and it requires that things stay this way for a while or get worse.
colorunner123 wrote:
I don't think it's healthy for democracy for a small handful of tech companies to decide what we can and can't discuss on the Internet.
aww poor baby wawa wants the federal government to get involved when things just don’t go his way
Awwww
SDSU Aztec wrote:
habs wrote:
not a fan of Berenson but even less of a fan of censorship by private companies. social media should be regulated as a public utility, paid for by tax dollars, on the condition that nobody can be banned unless ordered to by a court for breaking a law.
Wow. Government control of social media? I thought people on the right were opposed to communism. Who picks the judges that decide who should be banned?
twisted logic wrote:
So a company that creates a platform through it's own innovations and funded by private investment should be taken over by the government and run essentially as an appendage of the government. Is this really the state of conservatism today?
Twitter is not a utility or a non-profit. It is owned by shareholders. If the government wants to build a social media platform paid for with tax dollars they can do so, but I find that to be a chilling prospect.
i'm not on the right nor a conservative. i literally said i don't agree with Berenson in the reply. the US government can and has acquired private companies before. nothing inconsistent about my view.
if Berenson broke a law, let the courts decide that with a jury of his peers like we do for any other crime. but if his speech is legal then it shouldn't be banned. of course that system isn't perfect either but i'd rather that than unaccountable private companies making decisions.
This needs to be repeated...
The Democrat Hypocritical Lunacy wrote:
eaRWw wrote:
He can start his own friggen website. Or go stand on a street corner and yell. He has no right to expect a private company provide him anything, especially a platform for misinformation.
You dense morons have no ability to understand that Twitter, etc are exactly the same as telecom's, do you?
It's shocking how completely moronic many of you are, and your incessant desire for control is mind boggling. Idiots want to run everything.
rojo wrote:
Coach Jeff ROC wrote:
I think it's inevitable.
Without addressing the COVID response policy itself, the execution of the strategy has been based on the notion that if left to individuals to decide on their own, they will make disastrous decisions. Thus, we were told to accept as true ONLY what the CDC says. Instead of being told to "evaluate scientific findings and make your own judgement," we were (and are) told to "Follow THE science" as defined by the CDC. This may or may not be sound public policy; I'm not going to debate that.
Controlling the flow of information contrary to THE CDC science seems like a logical thing to do from that perspective.
I hope this doesn't sound kooky, but it all has a very religious feeling to me. It reminds me of the situation surrounding the Protestant Reformation. Originally there was one church (the CDC), run be an infallible guy who understands The Word of God (THE science), and is, therefore, the only one capable of knowing what to do. The believers must believe because the Word of God is too hard for them to understand (because Bibles were in Latin and THE science is just too complicated) . The believers often believe very fervently. Some, however, learn Latin and have different interpretations of The Word of Science. Persecution and mayhem ensue.
You gotta admit there's a whole lotta religious zeal on our COVID threads here, from all sides, each convinced that they have THE truth that will save our everlasting souls (or, in this case, our bodies, the bodies of our trophy wives, and/or the bodies of our moms from whose basements we all evangelize).
Go in peace, peeps.
Fantastic post. I've always felt there is a religious element to this as well as global warming. It blows my mind that so many non religious people don't realize they have a new idol.
People who listened to doctors trying to save lives have not been worshipping any idol. Berenson is a COVID downplayer and an anti-vaxxer who has gotten countless people killed with his takes like the one posted earlier ITT claiming the vaccines are dangerous and ineffective. Twitter isn't bound by the 1st amendment and even if they were, free speech has its limits. No one should be cheering for anyone to have the right to spread lies that are causing 1k+ Americans to die per day despite the availability of a vaccine that makes nearly all of those deaths preventable.
Im not asking. wrote:
It’s sad that Rojo doesn’t believe in vaccines
It's sad that those who buy into the vaccine storyline are so fragile that we must censor anything that runs counter to it.
This post was removed.
These powerful and connected dudes didn’t make it either. Couldn’t risk Listening to Fauci (except behind closed doors) as it was too difficult and political
Haha yo haha
Nothing wrong with a private company, even publicly traded, to kick people off for dangerous speech.
It is not a violation of free speech since they are not the government and they are not stopping him from speaking, just kicking him off their platform.
Berenson built a huge platform denying COVID. Then when 650k dead Americans proved him wrong he humbly admitted his mistakes and moved on.
Lol JK he decided to rail against the only thing keeping ANOTHER 650k Americans from dying: vaccines.
He usually walked a good line of “misleading but not wrong” but the vaccines have just worked too well for him the keep the grift up. So he started claiming they don’t work at all and got Twitter-slapped. There’s a lesson here somewhere….
Companies must be allowed to curate their platforms. It’s nonsensical to imagine a system otherwise.
logic123 wrote:
rojo wrote:
Fantastic post. I've always felt there is a religious element to this as well as global warming. It blows my mind that so many non religious people don't realize they have a new idol.
People who listened to doctors trying to save lives have not been worshipping any idol. Berenson is a COVID downplayer and an anti-vaxxer who has gotten countless people killed with his takes like the one posted earlier ITT claiming the vaccines are dangerous and ineffective. Twitter isn't bound by the 1st amendment and even if they were, free speech has its limits. No one should be cheering for anyone to have the right to spread lies that are causing 1k+ Americans to die per day despite the availability of a vaccine that makes nearly all of those deaths preventable.
Rojo, this basically supposes a false equivalency between people who think there’s magnets in the vaccine (or a worldwide conspiracy to fake vaccine data (after faking COVID data)) and people who are on the side of peer-reviewed science and reams of real world data.
The people supporting life saving vaccines don’t need any faith beyond general empiricism and the absence of a worldwide conspiracy to fake data. We see the data and it wildly supports vaccine uptake by the entire population.
The other side needs faith that a select group of non-subject-matter experts are correct and the consequences will be devastating for the Western world. Surprisingly, these people are often the EXACT SAME as those who were telling us COVID was a big lie as well. It’s baffling that people would 1) believe a non-subject-matter expert COVID denier then 2) watch them be completely wrong (650k excess deaths) and then 3) choose to believe them AGAIN on a very different matter (vaccines and immunology).
The amount of blind faith required is totally asymmetric toward the anti-vax side and failing to recognize that suggests you might be fairly sympathetic to these grifters.
2600 bro wrote:
Companies must be allowed to curate their platforms. It’s nonsensical to imagine a system otherwise.
Ask any “muh free speech on private platforms” bro about how they’d imagine regulating this and it basically requires: “the government puts out a list of things we are allowed to discuss.”
How pleasant!
colorunner123 wrote:
I view it as a bad thing. Berensen has been largely correct, but even if he weren't he should be allowed to voice his opinions. I don't think it's healthy for democracy for a small handful of tech companies to decide what we can and can't discuss on the Internet.
Agree this is a bad thing but disagree this is Twitter acting as a private company. The Democrats have made it absolutely clear to social media that if they do not play their game protections like 230 will go away. I don't agree with Dorsey but he does not seem like a bad guy. I think he wants Twitter to be more open. Just like Zuckerberg clearly did with Facebook if you listen to him speak 5 years ago. But they are terrified of what the government will do to their companies if they do not censor certain things.
Barfff wrote:
Duke Trujillo (haha yo super serial) wrote:
Yo yo Jamin haha yo
This is what people think 🤔
Can you believe it? It’s funny except that people are actually dying from something preventable
OK macdaddy. We know you laugh every time an unvaccinated person dies.
I would never register a username on this website.
rojo wrote: It blows my mind that so many non religious people don't realize they have a new idol.
Rojo was this many days old when he realized that atheists tend to trust/support science.
Great discovery, Robert.
habs wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Wow. Government control of social media? I thought people on the right were opposed to communism. Who picks the judges that decide who should be banned?
twisted logic wrote:
So a company that creates a platform through it's own innovations and funded by private investment should be taken over by the government and run essentially as an appendage of the government. Is this really the state of conservatism today?
Twitter is not a utility or a non-profit. It is owned by shareholders. If the government wants to build a social media platform paid for with tax dollars they can do so, but I find that to be a chilling prospect.
i'm not on the right nor a conservative. i literally said i don't agree with Berenson in the reply. the US government can and has acquired private companies before. nothing inconsistent about my view.
if Berenson broke a law, let the courts decide that with a jury of his peers like we do for any other crime. but if his speech is legal then it shouldn't be banned. of course that system isn't perfect either but i'd rather that than unaccountable private companies making decisions.
Berenson didn't committ a crime so I don't know what would be argued in court and I doubt if there are many judges willing to spend time horsing around with deciding what is appropriate to tweet. It's far better to allow the private sector to hash it out.
habs wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Wow. Government control of social media? I thought people on the right were opposed to communism. Who picks the judges that decide who should be banned?
twisted logic wrote:
So a company that creates a platform through it's own innovations and funded by private investment should be taken over by the government and run essentially as an appendage of the government. Is this really the state of conservatism today?
Twitter is not a utility or a non-profit. It is owned by shareholders. If the government wants to build a social media platform paid for with tax dollars they can do so, but I find that to be a chilling prospect.
i'm not on the right nor a conservative. i literally said i don't agree with Berenson in the reply. the US government can and has acquired private companies before. nothing inconsistent about my view.
if Berenson broke a law, let the courts decide that with a jury of his peers like we do for any other crime. but if his speech is legal then it shouldn't be banned. of course that system isn't perfect either but i'd rather that than unaccountable private companies making decisions.
We have always allowed private companies to establish their own terms of agreement regarding who they can serve as long as they comply with Federal anti-discrimination laws. A credit card company can cancel an account because of late payments, an airline can terminate a customer's membership in their rewards program, a restaurant can refuse to serve someone because of their attire, an employer can fire someone because they violated company policy, etc. No actual laws need to be broken but companies should be allowed to decide who they will serve based on their financial interests and brand image.
Free speech, as guaranteed by the constitution, is only protected against the government. Private companies are under no obligation to protect anyone’s freedom of speech. But it sounds like you have more confidence and trust in the government running these companies than the private sector.
Ingebrigtsen brothers release incredibly catchy Olympic music video (listen here + full lyrics)
Matt Fox/SweatElite harasses one of his clients after they called him out
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Sometimes it seems like Cooper Teare is not that good BUT…
Per sources, Colorado expected to hire NAU assistant coach Jarred Cornfield as head xc coach