The Supreme Court ruling doesn’t apply here since we already established we were talking about the distribution of misinformation.
Your list of censored opinions is ridiculous given they’re openly accessible, not to mention the fact that they don’t help your case at al.
The first link is from a publicly funded institution, so not censored, and the study corroborates that the benefits outweigh the cons for vaccines:
There is a broad consensus that the benefits of vaccination greatly outweigh the potential risks of rare vaccine side effects, such as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). Therefore, the importance of vaccination should be emphasized. This statement aims to focus on VITT.
Second bullet point is a frivolous lawsuit that never went anywhere.
Third bullet point is inconclusive and said more studies is needed. Furthermore, it’s not COVID specific.
Same with the fourth bullet point.
So far, you’ve given me complete bullshit to support some stupid and incorrect claim that vaccine and mask mandates are fascist and then tried to actually justify their ineffectiveness using sources that don’t even support your claims and sometimes even contradicts it.
I am not going to bother responding to you anymore. It’s clear you’d rather perpetrate misinformation than actually look at the evidence in front of your eyes. I only made this last comment to make sure anyone reading this how much misinformation you’ve been producing.
Yes, it does apply, because the entirety of what I’ve posted below was classified as “misinformation” and thus removed under pressure from the government. That is censorship. The Supreme Court found you cannot be forced to not publish information from a source the government doesn’t like. The scope of the censorship was specific to social media - again, this information was deleted by Facebook under pressure from the government.
Simply because the government believes the benefits outweigh the risks does not mean people shouldn’t be informed of the risks; that would be censorship, which was what the government did to Facebook and Twitter.
My point there was to point out the efficacy claims were not as straightforward as the media claimed; government didn’t like that truth, so it was censored.
You’re splitting hairs on the remaining points. The point is that the link between surgical masks and the spread of diseases was not what the media claimed. The government didn’t want that to be known, and thus it was removed from social media.
I’m not sure if you’re willfully misinterpreting and downplaying my statements, but the lengths you’ll go to defend censorship and pointless imprisonment are startling. A society should function on the basis of doing good so that good may come, not doing bad so that good may come. I don’t see what’s so controversial about that. I’m only producing information that’s been published already. You’re the one defending what would rightly be called government overreach while refusing to explain what the distinction between is and fascism is.
Again, your arguments could be used to justify Trump removing pro-trans and pro-immigration information from social media. I don’t want anyone to have that power.
Not “if the government says it’s false” if it is false. Why are you accepting being lied to?
I don’t know why you’re accepting a boot on your neck. The Supreme Court is clear that the government cannot regulate the speech of an organization simply because they don’t like the content. If you would like to give the government the right to determine what is and isn’t true and thus permissible on social media, that would mean Trump could rightly censor whatever claims/information he wanted - say, trans rights promotion, immigration assistance, and the like.
Also, here’s some information about what was being censored:
I’m glad we’re clear that you think the ends justify the means.
The Supreme Court ruling doesn’t apply here since we already established we were talking about the distribution of misinformation.
Your list of censored opinions is ridiculous given they’re openly accessible, not to mention the fact that they don’t help your case at al.
The first link is from a publicly funded institution, so not censored, and the study corroborates that the benefits outweigh the cons for vaccines:
Second bullet point is a frivolous lawsuit that never went anywhere.
Third bullet point is inconclusive and said more studies is needed. Furthermore, it’s not COVID specific.
Same with the fourth bullet point.
So far, you’ve given me complete bullshit to support some stupid and incorrect claim that vaccine and mask mandates are fascist and then tried to actually justify their ineffectiveness using sources that don’t even support your claims and sometimes even contradicts it.
I am not going to bother responding to you anymore. It’s clear you’d rather perpetrate misinformation than actually look at the evidence in front of your eyes. I only made this last comment to make sure anyone reading this how much misinformation you’ve been producing.
Yes, it does apply, because the entirety of what I’ve posted below was classified as “misinformation” and thus removed under pressure from the government. That is censorship. The Supreme Court found you cannot be forced to not publish information from a source the government doesn’t like. The scope of the censorship was specific to social media - again, this information was deleted by Facebook under pressure from the government.
Simply because the government believes the benefits outweigh the risks does not mean people shouldn’t be informed of the risks; that would be censorship, which was what the government did to Facebook and Twitter.
My point there was to point out the efficacy claims were not as straightforward as the media claimed; government didn’t like that truth, so it was censored.
You’re splitting hairs on the remaining points. The point is that the link between surgical masks and the spread of diseases was not what the media claimed. The government didn’t want that to be known, and thus it was removed from social media.
I’m not sure if you’re willfully misinterpreting and downplaying my statements, but the lengths you’ll go to defend censorship and pointless imprisonment are startling. A society should function on the basis of doing good so that good may come, not doing bad so that good may come. I don’t see what’s so controversial about that. I’m only producing information that’s been published already. You’re the one defending what would rightly be called government overreach while refusing to explain what the distinction between is and fascism is.
Again, your arguments could be used to justify Trump removing pro-trans and pro-immigration information from social media. I don’t want anyone to have that power.