Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont watch the news " How do you feel about people/organisations facing such consequences for spreading Covid misinformation? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont watch the news How do you feel about people/organisations facing such consequences for spreading Covid misinformation?" They deserve suspension | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The UK government have been doing this from the start of covid why not ban them and there pals who made all the money " (Love your werewolf pic lol) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sky news Australia was suspended on youtube for spreading Covid misinformation. What do you think about this?" censorship has consistently been applied to protect the Covid narrative so if you deviate from the party line you get a red card. And when you couple censorship’s together with Australia’s ludicrous zero covid policy you get a ban. So it doesn’t surprise me in the least. Plus it could be a game of politics that suits both YouTube and Sky news - YouTube can be seen as applying their rules (censorship!) equally across the board to even the bigger media players like sky news. And sky news can be seen as reporting an honest 360 perspective on the deadly virus (which of course they haven’t). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sky news Australia was suspended on youtube for spreading Covid misinformation. What do you think about this?censorship has consistently been applied to protect the Covid narrative so if you deviate from the party line you get a red card. And when you couple censorship’s together with Australia’s ludicrous zero covid policy you get a ban. So it doesn’t surprise me in the least. Plus it could be a game of politics that suits both YouTube and Sky news - YouTube can be seen as applying their rules (censorship!) equally across the board to even the bigger media players like sky news. And sky news can be seen as reporting an honest 360 perspective on the deadly virus (which of course they haven’t). " All mainstream media content is curated, little enforced censorship is happening in UK. Most outlets have tried to put out socially responsible content in the wake of this pandemic. Hence 300 degree coverage with little content appearing from the 60 degrees of conspiracy crackpots | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sky news Australia was suspended on youtube for spreading Covid misinformation. What do you think about this?censorship has consistently been applied to protect the Covid narrative so if you deviate from the party line you get a red card. And when you couple censorship’s together with Australia’s ludicrous zero covid policy you get a ban. So it doesn’t surprise me in the least. Plus it could be a game of politics that suits both YouTube and Sky news - YouTube can be seen as applying their rules (censorship!) equally across the board to even the bigger media players like sky news. And sky news can be seen as reporting an honest 360 perspective on the deadly virus (which of course they haven’t). All mainstream media content is curated, little enforced censorship is happening in UK. Most outlets have tried to put out socially responsible content in the wake of this pandemic. Hence 300 degree coverage with little content appearing from the 60 degrees of conspiracy crackpots " Loving your maths...but surely there must be a one per cent abstention  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You mean like Kay burley an Burt rigby" LMAO - Burt Rigby. Ms Rigby has a deep voice. But it's definitely Beth, lol. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You mean like Kay burley an Burt rigby" “Burt rigby” Fuck me it’s Oscar Wilde  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You mean like Kay burley an Burt rigby LMAO - Burt Rigby. Ms Rigby has a deep voice. But it's definitely Beth, lol." I know it's Beth. But she doesn't have look like a Burt rigby lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sky news Australia was suspended on youtube for spreading Covid misinformation. What do you think about this?censorship has consistently been applied to protect the Covid narrative so if you deviate from the party line you get a red card. And when you couple censorship’s together with Australia’s ludicrous zero covid policy you get a ban. So it doesn’t surprise me in the least. Plus it could be a game of politics that suits both YouTube and Sky news - YouTube can be seen as applying their rules (censorship!) equally across the board to even the bigger media players like sky news. And sky news can be seen as reporting an honest 360 perspective on the deadly virus (which of course they haven’t). " This and if a news channel doesnt follow the covid narrative they get censored. I wonder what they said against it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E" Mhm | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E" It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why." Especially during a pandemic when misinformation has the capacity to kill many, many people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why. Especially during a pandemic when misinformation has the capacity to kill many, many people." Indeed. Personally I consider the hurt feelings of the people whose nonsense is suppressed a very cheap price to pay to protect lives. But the political blow back has the potential to be enormous. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why. Especially during a pandemic when misinformation has the capacity to kill many, many people. Indeed. Personally I consider the hurt feelings of the people whose nonsense is suppressed a very cheap price to pay to protect lives. But the political blow back has the potential to be enormous." True. The problem is when people believe certain lies for long enough, the mere act of pointing out those lies can result in an angry backlash directed at the person who pointed out the lies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why. Especially during a pandemic when misinformation has the capacity to kill many, many people. Indeed. Personally I consider the hurt feelings of the people whose nonsense is suppressed a very cheap price to pay to protect lives. But the political blow back has the potential to be enormous. True. The problem is when people believe certain lies for long enough, the mere act of pointing out those lies can result in an angry backlash directed at the person who pointed out the lies." Yes. It's as though fact checking bollocks is an attack on their identity. No, FFS. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Having seen some sky news Australia on YouTube, came to the conclusion that the spirit of goebells is alive and well. How they and fox news in America are allowed to use the word news in their title is beyond me "Fox "news" is a remarkable misnomer, isn't it? It's astonishing that anybody considers their content to be news. There was a study that found Fox News viewers were more misinformed than people who watched no news at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Having seen some sky news Australia on YouTube, came to the conclusion that the spirit of goebells is alive and well. How they and fox news in America are allowed to use the word news in their title is beyond me
Fox "news" is a remarkable misnomer, isn't it? It's astonishing that anybody considers their content to be news.
There was a study that found Fox News viewers were more misinformed than people who watched no news at all."It's identity commentary, not news. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Having seen some sky news Australia on YouTube, came to the conclusion that the spirit of goebells is alive and well. How they and fox news in America are allowed to use the word news in their title is beyond me
Fox "news" is a remarkable misnomer, isn't it? It's astonishing that anybody considers their content to be news.
There was a study that found Fox News viewers were more misinformed than people who watched no news at all.
It's identity commentary, not news. "I think more than anything it's a political machine to drive voters a certain way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Having seen some sky news Australia on YouTube, came to the conclusion that the spirit of goebells is alive and well. How they and fox news in America are allowed to use the word news in their title is beyond me
Fox "news" is a remarkable misnomer, isn't it? It's astonishing that anybody considers their content to be news.
There was a study that found Fox News viewers were more misinformed than people who watched no news at all.
It's identity commentary, not news.
I think more than anything it's a political machine to drive voters a certain way."Yes. We've seen pretty overt hints of that kind of thing | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Having seen some sky news Australia on YouTube, came to the conclusion that the spirit of goebells is alive and well. How they and fox news in America are allowed to use the word news in their title is beyond me
Fox "news" is a remarkable misnomer, isn't it? It's astonishing that anybody considers their content to be news.
There was a study that found Fox News viewers were more misinformed than people who watched no news at all.
It's identity commentary, not news.
I think more than anything it's a political machine to drive voters a certain way.
Yes. We've seen pretty overt hints of that kind of thing"Whenever I get involved in a Trump thread, it's astonishing to read the things some people believe. I think a lot of that is down to Fox. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Was about to say Sky ..news... what a ultimate oxy moron and anyone care to cast their mind back to when the Camerloon got in to power he was on about doing away with the watch dog dealing with television and doing the same as in America ?? ( remove the need for balance etc etc ) but...and now we have "GB" news ...and now about the only news prog worthy of being called a news prog channel 4 and channel 4 is being flogged off to their media mates funny that ??" GB News has been a hilarious failure so far. Long may that continue. And yes, it's incredibly sad the Tories are doing all they can to shut down C4 news. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why. Especially during a pandemic when misinformation has the capacity to kill many, many people. Indeed. Personally I consider the hurt feelings of the people whose nonsense is suppressed a very cheap price to pay to protect lives. But the political blow back has the potential to be enormous. True. The problem is when people believe certain lies for long enough, the mere act of pointing out those lies can result in an angry backlash directed at the person who pointed out the lies. Yes. It's as though fact checking bollocks is an attack on their identity. No, FFS. " . Who fact checks the fact checkers!!. We've been through this in the past, censorship never ends well for either party. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why. Especially during a pandemic when misinformation has the capacity to kill many, many people. Indeed. Personally I consider the hurt feelings of the people whose nonsense is suppressed a very cheap price to pay to protect lives. But the political blow back has the potential to be enormous. True. The problem is when people believe certain lies for long enough, the mere act of pointing out those lies can result in an angry backlash directed at the person who pointed out the lies. Yes. It's as though fact checking bollocks is an attack on their identity. No, FFS. . Who fact checks the fact checkers!!. We've been through this in the past, censorship never ends well for either party." In my very first comment, I said it's a difficult balance. I don't think organisations should be able to spew whatever garbage they like, but I also think that putting checks on it is difficult. I do think that letting pseudoscience pass as fact is dangerous. I don't know the answer. Wish I did. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why. Especially during a pandemic when misinformation has the capacity to kill many, many people. Indeed. Personally I consider the hurt feelings of the people whose nonsense is suppressed a very cheap price to pay to protect lives. But the political blow back has the potential to be enormous. True. The problem is when people believe certain lies for long enough, the mere act of pointing out those lies can result in an angry backlash directed at the person who pointed out the lies. Yes. It's as though fact checking bollocks is an attack on their identity. No, FFS. . Who fact checks the fact checkers!!. We've been through this in the past, censorship never ends well for either party. In my very first comment, I said it's a difficult balance. I don't think organisations should be able to spew whatever garbage they like, but I also think that putting checks on it is difficult. I do think that letting pseudoscience pass as fact is dangerous. I don't know the answer. Wish I did." . Freedom and personal responsibility, they've been our go to solution for this in the past, now we want to try the opposite, we'll cure the disease by killing the host?. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why. Especially during a pandemic when misinformation has the capacity to kill many, many people. Indeed. Personally I consider the hurt feelings of the people whose nonsense is suppressed a very cheap price to pay to protect lives. But the political blow back has the potential to be enormous. True. The problem is when people believe certain lies for long enough, the mere act of pointing out those lies can result in an angry backlash directed at the person who pointed out the lies. Yes. It's as though fact checking bollocks is an attack on their identity. No, FFS. . Who fact checks the fact checkers!!. We've been through this in the past, censorship never ends well for either party." I’m not sure you understand what a fact is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sky news Australia was suspended on youtube for spreading Covid misinformation. What do you think about this?" Big Tech rules Ok  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why. Especially during a pandemic when misinformation has the capacity to kill many, many people. Indeed. Personally I consider the hurt feelings of the people whose nonsense is suppressed a very cheap price to pay to protect lives. But the political blow back has the potential to be enormous. True. The problem is when people believe certain lies for long enough, the mere act of pointing out those lies can result in an angry backlash directed at the person who pointed out the lies. Yes. It's as though fact checking bollocks is an attack on their identity. No, FFS. . Who fact checks the fact checkers!!. We've been through this in the past, censorship never ends well for either party. In my very first comment, I said it's a difficult balance. I don't think organisations should be able to spew whatever garbage they like, but I also think that putting checks on it is difficult. I do think that letting pseudoscience pass as fact is dangerous. I don't know the answer. Wish I did.. Freedom and personal responsibility, they've been our go to solution for this in the past, now we want to try the opposite, we'll cure the disease by killing the host?." I'm not sure what history books you've read, but my understanding of history does not support the idea that leaving us to it is how any major crisis has been handled in any first world country in the last several hundred years. They're nice slogans but a bit definition free and subject to interpretation. Also, I don't know about you, but this last 18 months, the "personal responsibility" of the population leaves an awful lot to be desired | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why. Especially during a pandemic when misinformation has the capacity to kill many, many people. Indeed. Personally I consider the hurt feelings of the people whose nonsense is suppressed a very cheap price to pay to protect lives. But the political blow back has the potential to be enormous. True. The problem is when people believe certain lies for long enough, the mere act of pointing out those lies can result in an angry backlash directed at the person who pointed out the lies. Yes. It's as though fact checking bollocks is an attack on their identity. No, FFS. . Who fact checks the fact checkers!!. We've been through this in the past, censorship never ends well for either party. In my very first comment, I said it's a difficult balance. I don't think organisations should be able to spew whatever garbage they like, but I also think that putting checks on it is difficult. I do think that letting pseudoscience pass as fact is dangerous. I don't know the answer. Wish I did.. Freedom and personal responsibility, they've been our go to solution for this in the past, now we want to try the opposite, we'll cure the disease by killing the host?. I'm not sure what history books you've read, but my understanding of history does not support the idea that leaving us to it is how any major crisis has been handled in any first world country in the last several hundred years. They're nice slogans but a bit definition free and subject to interpretation. Also, I don't know about you, but this last 18 months, the "personal responsibility" of the population leaves an awful lot to be desired" The nanny state thinks for everybody, what do you need personal responsibility for?. You may trust the state for everything but everybody that ever did learned to regret it and if you've not learned anything from history on that front I suggest reading up on any state that tried it, they almost all went on to butcher half there population, if censorship worked the middle East would be Mecca!. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You mean like Kay burley an Burt rigby LMAO - Burt Rigby. Ms Rigby has a deep voice. But it's definitely Beth, lol. I know it's Beth. But she doesn't have look like a Burt rigby lol" Setting your misogyny aside she is brilliant at her job. If you're judging everyone by their appearance I'm assuming Johnson and Farage won't be on your Christmas Card list either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Having seen some sky news Australia on YouTube, came to the conclusion that the spirit of goebells is alive and well. How they and fox news in America are allowed to use the word news in their title is beyond me "This | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont watch the news " Not really what was asked. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why. Especially during a pandemic when misinformation has the capacity to kill many, many people. Indeed. Personally I consider the hurt feelings of the people whose nonsense is suppressed a very cheap price to pay to protect lives. But the political blow back has the potential to be enormous. True. The problem is when people believe certain lies for long enough, the mere act of pointing out those lies can result in an angry backlash directed at the person who pointed out the lies. Yes. It's as though fact checking bollocks is an attack on their identity. No, FFS. . Who fact checks the fact checkers!!. We've been through this in the past, censorship never ends well for either party. In my very first comment, I said it's a difficult balance. I don't think organisations should be able to spew whatever garbage they like, but I also think that putting checks on it is difficult. I do think that letting pseudoscience pass as fact is dangerous. I don't know the answer. Wish I did.. Freedom and personal responsibility, they've been our go to solution for this in the past, now we want to try the opposite, we'll cure the disease by killing the host?. I'm not sure what history books you've read, but my understanding of history does not support the idea that leaving us to it is how any major crisis has been handled in any first world country in the last several hundred years. They're nice slogans but a bit definition free and subject to interpretation. Also, I don't know about you, but this last 18 months, the "personal responsibility" of the population leaves an awful lot to be desired The nanny state thinks for everybody, what do you need personal responsibility for?. You may trust the state for everything but everybody that ever did learned to regret it and if you've not learned anything from history on that front I suggest reading up on any state that tried it, they almost all went on to butcher half there population, if censorship worked the middle East would be Mecca!. " Ok, if you can't see the nuance in my argument then there's no point continuing to discuss it. Enjoy your view of the world. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why. Especially during a pandemic when misinformation has the capacity to kill many, many people. Indeed. Personally I consider the hurt feelings of the people whose nonsense is suppressed a very cheap price to pay to protect lives. But the political blow back has the potential to be enormous. True. The problem is when people believe certain lies for long enough, the mere act of pointing out those lies can result in an angry backlash directed at the person who pointed out the lies. Yes. It's as though fact checking bollocks is an attack on their identity. No, FFS. . Who fact checks the fact checkers!!. We've been through this in the past, censorship never ends well for either party. In my very first comment, I said it's a difficult balance. I don't think organisations should be able to spew whatever garbage they like, but I also think that putting checks on it is difficult. I do think that letting pseudoscience pass as fact is dangerous. I don't know the answer. Wish I did.. Freedom and personal responsibility, they've been our go to solution for this in the past, now we want to try the opposite, we'll cure the disease by killing the host?. I'm not sure what history books you've read, but my understanding of history does not support the idea that leaving us to it is how any major crisis has been handled in any first world country in the last several hundred years. They're nice slogans but a bit definition free and subject to interpretation. Also, I don't know about you, but this last 18 months, the "personal responsibility" of the population leaves an awful lot to be desired The nanny state thinks for everybody, what do you need personal responsibility for?. You may trust the state for everything but everybody that ever did learned to regret it and if you've not learned anything from history on that front I suggest reading up on any state that tried it, they almost all went on to butcher half there population, if censorship worked the middle East would be Mecca!. " "The nanny state" is such a loaded phrase when you think about it. It's the sort of phrase certain people trot out when they want to scoff at the idea of being swaddled like a baby. After all aren't we adults? But what about the NHS? Doesn't that protect us? Doesn't that save our lives? Isn't it incredibly necessary? And what about the welfare state? If we fall on hard times, doesn't that save us and keep us off the streets? It seems "the nanny state" can be a crucial thing at times... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why. Especially during a pandemic when misinformation has the capacity to kill many, many people. Indeed. Personally I consider the hurt feelings of the people whose nonsense is suppressed a very cheap price to pay to protect lives. But the political blow back has the potential to be enormous. True. The problem is when people believe certain lies for long enough, the mere act of pointing out those lies can result in an angry backlash directed at the person who pointed out the lies. Yes. It's as though fact checking bollocks is an attack on their identity. No, FFS. . Who fact checks the fact checkers!!. We've been through this in the past, censorship never ends well for either party. I’m not sure you understand what a fact is." . There are no facts in science, there's laws and highly proven hypothesises you get to a highly proven hypothesis by trying to prove it incorrect, that requires you to at the least be slightly off the beaten path?. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why. Especially during a pandemic when misinformation has the capacity to kill many, many people. Indeed. Personally I consider the hurt feelings of the people whose nonsense is suppressed a very cheap price to pay to protect lives. But the political blow back has the potential to be enormous. True. The problem is when people believe certain lies for long enough, the mere act of pointing out those lies can result in an angry backlash directed at the person who pointed out the lies. Yes. It's as though fact checking bollocks is an attack on their identity. No, FFS. . Who fact checks the fact checkers!!. We've been through this in the past, censorship never ends well for either party. In my very first comment, I said it's a difficult balance. I don't think organisations should be able to spew whatever garbage they like, but I also think that putting checks on it is difficult. I do think that letting pseudoscience pass as fact is dangerous. I don't know the answer. Wish I did.. Freedom and personal responsibility, they've been our go to solution for this in the past, now we want to try the opposite, we'll cure the disease by killing the host?. I'm not sure what history books you've read, but my understanding of history does not support the idea that leaving us to it is how any major crisis has been handled in any first world country in the last several hundred years. They're nice slogans but a bit definition free and subject to interpretation. Also, I don't know about you, but this last 18 months, the "personal responsibility" of the population leaves an awful lot to be desired The nanny state thinks for everybody, what do you need personal responsibility for?. You may trust the state for everything but everybody that ever did learned to regret it and if you've not learned anything from history on that front I suggest reading up on any state that tried it, they almost all went on to butcher half there population, if censorship worked the middle East would be Mecca!. "The nanny state" is such a loaded phrase when you think about it. It's the sort of phrase certain people trot out when they want to scoff at the idea of being swaddled like a baby. After all aren't we adults? But what about the NHS? Doesn't that protect us? Doesn't that save our lives? Isn't it incredibly necessary? And what about the welfare state? If we fall on hard times, doesn't that save us and keep us off the streets? It seems "the nanny state" can be a crucial thing at times... " It is incredibly loaded. People need safe tap water, food standards, regulated health care, product standards, safe roads. Pah. They need their nappies changing, obviously. Or we recognise that society has structure to benefit us all. How far that structure should go, I'm not sure and I'm actually not arguing that at the moment. I just think we need governance and guidance, and throwing around libertarian slogans won't fix anything. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why. Especially during a pandemic when misinformation has the capacity to kill many, many people. Indeed. Personally I consider the hurt feelings of the people whose nonsense is suppressed a very cheap price to pay to protect lives. But the political blow back has the potential to be enormous. True. The problem is when people believe certain lies for long enough, the mere act of pointing out those lies can result in an angry backlash directed at the person who pointed out the lies. Yes. It's as though fact checking bollocks is an attack on their identity. No, FFS. . Who fact checks the fact checkers!!. We've been through this in the past, censorship never ends well for either party. In my very first comment, I said it's a difficult balance. I don't think organisations should be able to spew whatever garbage they like, but I also think that putting checks on it is difficult. I do think that letting pseudoscience pass as fact is dangerous. I don't know the answer. Wish I did.. Freedom and personal responsibility, they've been our go to solution for this in the past, now we want to try the opposite, we'll cure the disease by killing the host?. I'm not sure what history books you've read, but my understanding of history does not support the idea that leaving us to it is how any major crisis has been handled in any first world country in the last several hundred years. They're nice slogans but a bit definition free and subject to interpretation. Also, I don't know about you, but this last 18 months, the "personal responsibility" of the population leaves an awful lot to be desired The nanny state thinks for everybody, what do you need personal responsibility for?. You may trust the state for everything but everybody that ever did learned to regret it and if you've not learned anything from history on that front I suggest reading up on any state that tried it, they almost all went on to butcher half there population, if censorship worked the middle East would be Mecca!. "The nanny state" is such a loaded phrase when you think about it. It's the sort of phrase certain people trot out when they want to scoff at the idea of being swaddled like a baby. After all aren't we adults? But what about the NHS? Doesn't that protect us? Doesn't that save our lives? Isn't it incredibly necessary? And what about the welfare state? If we fall on hard times, doesn't that save us and keep us off the streets? It seems "the nanny state" can be a crucial thing at times... " . So you cure one problem and create two others, now nobody watches where there going because somebody puts a metal grid over every hole, everybody wanders round with a phone pressed against there face reviewing your checked facts over are all holes covered by metal plates?. The world is full of busy bodies and power crazed maniacs neither of which I want running my government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why. Especially during a pandemic when misinformation has the capacity to kill many, many people. Indeed. Personally I consider the hurt feelings of the people whose nonsense is suppressed a very cheap price to pay to protect lives. But the political blow back has the potential to be enormous. True. The problem is when people believe certain lies for long enough, the mere act of pointing out those lies can result in an angry backlash directed at the person who pointed out the lies. Yes. It's as though fact checking bollocks is an attack on their identity. No, FFS. . Who fact checks the fact checkers!!. We've been through this in the past, censorship never ends well for either party. In my very first comment, I said it's a difficult balance. I don't think organisations should be able to spew whatever garbage they like, but I also think that putting checks on it is difficult. I do think that letting pseudoscience pass as fact is dangerous. I don't know the answer. Wish I did.. Freedom and personal responsibility, they've been our go to solution for this in the past, now we want to try the opposite, we'll cure the disease by killing the host?. I'm not sure what history books you've read, but my understanding of history does not support the idea that leaving us to it is how any major crisis has been handled in any first world country in the last several hundred years. They're nice slogans but a bit definition free and subject to interpretation. Also, I don't know about you, but this last 18 months, the "personal responsibility" of the population leaves an awful lot to be desired The nanny state thinks for everybody, what do you need personal responsibility for?. You may trust the state for everything but everybody that ever did learned to regret it and if you've not learned anything from history on that front I suggest reading up on any state that tried it, they almost all went on to butcher half there population, if censorship worked the middle East would be Mecca!. "The nanny state" is such a loaded phrase when you think about it. It's the sort of phrase certain people trot out when they want to scoff at the idea of being swaddled like a baby. After all aren't we adults? But what about the NHS? Doesn't that protect us? Doesn't that save our lives? Isn't it incredibly necessary? And what about the welfare state? If we fall on hard times, doesn't that save us and keep us off the streets? It seems "the nanny state" can be a crucial thing at times... It is incredibly loaded. People need safe tap water, food standards, regulated health care, product standards, safe roads. Pah. They need their nappies changing, obviously. Or we recognise that society has structure to benefit us all. How far that structure should go, I'm not sure and I'm actually not arguing that at the moment. I just think we need governance and guidance, and throwing around libertarian slogans won't fix anything." . Yea because you liberals have done such an amazing job with the planet over the last 40 years that somebody had to invent libertarians | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why. Especially during a pandemic when misinformation has the capacity to kill many, many people. Indeed. Personally I consider the hurt feelings of the people whose nonsense is suppressed a very cheap price to pay to protect lives. But the political blow back has the potential to be enormous. True. The problem is when people believe certain lies for long enough, the mere act of pointing out those lies can result in an angry backlash directed at the person who pointed out the lies. Yes. It's as though fact checking bollocks is an attack on their identity. No, FFS. . Who fact checks the fact checkers!!. We've been through this in the past, censorship never ends well for either party. In my very first comment, I said it's a difficult balance. I don't think organisations should be able to spew whatever garbage they like, but I also think that putting checks on it is difficult. I do think that letting pseudoscience pass as fact is dangerous. I don't know the answer. Wish I did.. Freedom and personal responsibility, they've been our go to solution for this in the past, now we want to try the opposite, we'll cure the disease by killing the host?. I'm not sure what history books you've read, but my understanding of history does not support the idea that leaving us to it is how any major crisis has been handled in any first world country in the last several hundred years. They're nice slogans but a bit definition free and subject to interpretation. Also, I don't know about you, but this last 18 months, the "personal responsibility" of the population leaves an awful lot to be desired The nanny state thinks for everybody, what do you need personal responsibility for?. You may trust the state for everything but everybody that ever did learned to regret it and if you've not learned anything from history on that front I suggest reading up on any state that tried it, they almost all went on to butcher half there population, if censorship worked the middle East would be Mecca!. "The nanny state" is such a loaded phrase when you think about it. It's the sort of phrase certain people trot out when they want to scoff at the idea of being swaddled like a baby. After all aren't we adults? But what about the NHS? Doesn't that protect us? Doesn't that save our lives? Isn't it incredibly necessary? And what about the welfare state? If we fall on hard times, doesn't that save us and keep us off the streets? It seems "the nanny state" can be a crucial thing at times... . So you cure one problem and create two others, now nobody watches where there going because somebody puts a metal grid over every hole, everybody wanders round with a phone pressed against there face reviewing your checked facts over are all holes covered by metal plates?. The world is full of busy bodies and power crazed maniacs neither of which I want running my government. " Feels like you didn't read what I wrote at all. Ho hum. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why. Especially during a pandemic when misinformation has the capacity to kill many, many people. Indeed. Personally I consider the hurt feelings of the people whose nonsense is suppressed a very cheap price to pay to protect lives. But the political blow back has the potential to be enormous. True. The problem is when people believe certain lies for long enough, the mere act of pointing out those lies can result in an angry backlash directed at the person who pointed out the lies. Yes. It's as though fact checking bollocks is an attack on their identity. No, FFS. . Who fact checks the fact checkers!!. We've been through this in the past, censorship never ends well for either party. In my very first comment, I said it's a difficult balance. I don't think organisations should be able to spew whatever garbage they like, but I also think that putting checks on it is difficult. I do think that letting pseudoscience pass as fact is dangerous. I don't know the answer. Wish I did.. Freedom and personal responsibility, they've been our go to solution for this in the past, now we want to try the opposite, we'll cure the disease by killing the host?. I'm not sure what history books you've read, but my understanding of history does not support the idea that leaving us to it is how any major crisis has been handled in any first world country in the last several hundred years. They're nice slogans but a bit definition free and subject to interpretation. Also, I don't know about you, but this last 18 months, the "personal responsibility" of the population leaves an awful lot to be desired The nanny state thinks for everybody, what do you need personal responsibility for?. You may trust the state for everything but everybody that ever did learned to regret it and if you've not learned anything from history on that front I suggest reading up on any state that tried it, they almost all went on to butcher half there population, if censorship worked the middle East would be Mecca!. "The nanny state" is such a loaded phrase when you think about it. It's the sort of phrase certain people trot out when they want to scoff at the idea of being swaddled like a baby. After all aren't we adults? But what about the NHS? Doesn't that protect us? Doesn't that save our lives? Isn't it incredibly necessary? And what about the welfare state? If we fall on hard times, doesn't that save us and keep us off the streets? It seems "the nanny state" can be a crucial thing at times... It is incredibly loaded. People need safe tap water, food standards, regulated health care, product standards, safe roads. Pah. They need their nappies changing, obviously. Or we recognise that society has structure to benefit us all. How far that structure should go, I'm not sure and I'm actually not arguing that at the moment. I just think we need governance and guidance, and throwing around libertarian slogans won't fix anything.. Yea because you liberals have done such an amazing job with the planet over the last 40 years that somebody had to invent libertarians "Ok, you do you  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why. Especially during a pandemic when misinformation has the capacity to kill many, many people. Indeed. Personally I consider the hurt feelings of the people whose nonsense is suppressed a very cheap price to pay to protect lives. But the political blow back has the potential to be enormous. True. The problem is when people believe certain lies for long enough, the mere act of pointing out those lies can result in an angry backlash directed at the person who pointed out the lies. Yes. It's as though fact checking bollocks is an attack on their identity. No, FFS. . Who fact checks the fact checkers!!. We've been through this in the past, censorship never ends well for either party. In my very first comment, I said it's a difficult balance. I don't think organisations should be able to spew whatever garbage they like, but I also think that putting checks on it is difficult. I do think that letting pseudoscience pass as fact is dangerous. I don't know the answer. Wish I did.. Freedom and personal responsibility, they've been our go to solution for this in the past, now we want to try the opposite, we'll cure the disease by killing the host?. I'm not sure what history books you've read, but my understanding of history does not support the idea that leaving us to it is how any major crisis has been handled in any first world country in the last several hundred years. They're nice slogans but a bit definition free and subject to interpretation. Also, I don't know about you, but this last 18 months, the "personal responsibility" of the population leaves an awful lot to be desired The nanny state thinks for everybody, what do you need personal responsibility for?. You may trust the state for everything but everybody that ever did learned to regret it and if you've not learned anything from history on that front I suggest reading up on any state that tried it, they almost all went on to butcher half there population, if censorship worked the middle East would be Mecca!. "The nanny state" is such a loaded phrase when you think about it. It's the sort of phrase certain people trot out when they want to scoff at the idea of being swaddled like a baby. After all aren't we adults? But what about the NHS? Doesn't that protect us? Doesn't that save our lives? Isn't it incredibly necessary? And what about the welfare state? If we fall on hard times, doesn't that save us and keep us off the streets? It seems "the nanny state" can be a crucial thing at times... It is incredibly loaded. People need safe tap water, food standards, regulated health care, product standards, safe roads. Pah. They need their nappies changing, obviously. Or we recognise that society has structure to benefit us all. How far that structure should go, I'm not sure and I'm actually not arguing that at the moment. I just think we need governance and guidance, and throwing around libertarian slogans won't fix anything.. Yea because you liberals have done such an amazing job with the planet over the last 40 years that somebody had to invent libertarians
Ok, you do you "Your correct of course on this point, you're in fact not a liberal, however the world has been run by liberals for forty years, so we can't blame all those failures on libertarian slogans can we?. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why. Especially during a pandemic when misinformation has the capacity to kill many, many people. Indeed. Personally I consider the hurt feelings of the people whose nonsense is suppressed a very cheap price to pay to protect lives. But the political blow back has the potential to be enormous. True. The problem is when people believe certain lies for long enough, the mere act of pointing out those lies can result in an angry backlash directed at the person who pointed out the lies. Yes. It's as though fact checking bollocks is an attack on their identity. No, FFS. . Who fact checks the fact checkers!!. We've been through this in the past, censorship never ends well for either party. I’m not sure you understand what a fact is.. There are no facts in science, there's laws and highly proven hypothesises you get to a highly proven hypothesis by trying to prove it incorrect, that requires you to at the least be slightly off the beaten path?." Ah the good OLD days. For too long now a lot of science has been about proving the hypothesis correct. You've got to wonder what the implications of that are for the quality of scientific findings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why. Especially during a pandemic when misinformation has the capacity to kill many, many people. Indeed. Personally I consider the hurt feelings of the people whose nonsense is suppressed a very cheap price to pay to protect lives. But the political blow back has the potential to be enormous. True. The problem is when people believe certain lies for long enough, the mere act of pointing out those lies can result in an angry backlash directed at the person who pointed out the lies. Yes. It's as though fact checking bollocks is an attack on their identity. No, FFS. . Who fact checks the fact checkers!!. We've been through this in the past, censorship never ends well for either party. I’m not sure you understand what a fact is.. There are no facts in science, there's laws and highly proven hypothesises you get to a highly proven hypothesis by trying to prove it incorrect, that requires you to at the least be slightly off the beaten path?." . Anyway after all that kerfuffle the answers still this, you can't have censorship and science, take your pick?. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why. Especially during a pandemic when misinformation has the capacity to kill many, many people. Indeed. Personally I consider the hurt feelings of the people whose nonsense is suppressed a very cheap price to pay to protect lives. But the political blow back has the potential to be enormous. True. The problem is when people believe certain lies for long enough, the mere act of pointing out those lies can result in an angry backlash directed at the person who pointed out the lies. Yes. It's as though fact checking bollocks is an attack on their identity. No, FFS. . Who fact checks the fact checkers!!. We've been through this in the past, censorship never ends well for either party. I’m not sure you understand what a fact is.. There are no facts in science, there's laws and highly proven hypothesises you get to a highly proven hypothesis by trying to prove it incorrect, that requires you to at the least be slightly off the beaten path?." The question was who fact checks the fact checkers, the point is that facts don’t need to be checked, they are demonstrably true. If something is wrong such as all the rubbish about hydroxychloroquine being a cure for Covid19 then that needs to be said, however butthurt the proponents of such lies get. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sky news Australia was suspended on youtube for spreading Covid misinformation. What do you think about this?censorship has consistently been applied to protect the Covid narrative so if you deviate from the party line you get a red card. And when you couple censorship’s together with Australia’s ludicrous zero covid policy you get a ban. So it doesn’t surprise me in the least. Plus it could be a game of politics that suits both YouTube and Sky news - YouTube can be seen as applying their rules (censorship!) equally across the board to even the bigger media players like sky news. And sky news can be seen as reporting an honest 360 perspective on the deadly virus (which of course they haven’t). All mainstream media content is curated, little enforced censorship is happening in UK. Most outlets have tried to put out socially responsible content in the wake of this pandemic. Hence 300 degree coverage with little content appearing from the 60 degrees of conspiracy crackpots " you are correct - there is little enforced censorship because the narrative is scripted so there is no need. Good point, I fully agree | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sky news Australia was suspended on youtube for spreading Covid misinformation. What do you think about this?censorship has consistently been applied to protect the Covid narrative so if you deviate from the party line you get a red card. And when you couple censorship’s together with Australia’s ludicrous zero covid policy you get a ban. So it doesn’t surprise me in the least. Plus it could be a game of politics that suits both YouTube and Sky news - YouTube can be seen as applying their rules (censorship!) equally across the board to even the bigger media players like sky news. And sky news can be seen as reporting an honest 360 perspective on the deadly virus (which of course they haven’t). All mainstream media content is curated, little enforced censorship is happening in UK. Most outlets have tried to put out socially responsible content in the wake of this pandemic. Hence 300 degree coverage with little content appearing from the 60 degrees of conspiracy crackpots you are correct - there is little enforced censorship because the narrative is scripted so there is no need. Good point, I fully agree "And what is the "scripted narrative" in your view? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why. Especially during a pandemic when misinformation has the capacity to kill many, many people." such as lock yourself away in your house if your elderly and open a window in the middle of winter . Or don’t hug your grandchildren; or how about if your showing symptoms then isolate for 14 days and if your symptoms deteriorate then go to hospital for a ventilator (and we all know you’d chance of survival once you go in to a ventilator with pneumonia) , and wash your hands every 5 mins - hands , Space , face ! ; and young kids wearing masks all day in school ; kids waiting in their bubbles for the school to in the middle of a football pitch in winter , freezing cold and rain ; oh I forgot, the virus is so deadly that you have no symptoms whatsoever and you have to get a dodgy PCR test to confirm that the reason why you feel perfectly fine is that you most likely have the virus and will die if you don’t go to your room for 14 days ; yes, censorship is definitely needed all right because people no longer have the ability to think for themselves (thank god for the bbc , sky , YouTube | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why. Especially during a pandemic when misinformation has the capacity to kill many, many people. such as lock yourself away in your house if your elderly and open a window in the middle of winter . Or don’t hug your grandchildren; or how about if your showing symptoms then isolate for 14 days and if your symptoms deteriorate then go to hospital for a ventilator (and we all know you’d chance of survival once you go in to a ventilator with pneumonia) , and wash your hands every 5 mins - hands , Space , face ! ; and young kids wearing masks all day in school ; kids waiting in their bubbles for the school to in the middle of a football pitch in winter , freezing cold and rain ; oh I forgot, the virus is so deadly that you have no symptoms whatsoever and you have to get a dodgy PCR test to confirm that the reason why you feel perfectly fine is that you most likely have the virus and will die if you don’t go to your room for 14 days ; yes, censorship is definitely needed all right because people no longer have the ability to think for themselves (thank god for the bbc , sky , YouTube "Spits out my tea Cough cough | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who don't believe the truth, complain about how their "truth" is being censored. Funny. E It's a difficult balance, allowing a diversity of views without endangering the public. I don't think we've got it right, but I think we do need to think about responsibility in what's published, who should have it and why. Especially during a pandemic when misinformation has the capacity to kill many, many people. such as lock yourself away in your house if your elderly and open a window in the middle of winter . Or don’t hug your grandchildren; or how about if your showing symptoms then isolate for 14 days and if your symptoms deteriorate then go to hospital for a ventilator (and we all know you’d chance of survival once you go in to a ventilator with pneumonia) , and wash your hands every 5 mins - hands , Space , face ! ; and young kids wearing masks all day in school ; kids waiting in their bubbles for the school to in the middle of a football pitch in winter , freezing cold and rain ; oh I forgot, the virus is so deadly that you have no symptoms whatsoever and you have to get a dodgy PCR test to confirm that the reason why you feel perfectly fine is that you most likely have the virus and will die if you don’t go to your room for 14 days ; yes, censorship is definitely needed all right because people no longer have the ability to think for themselves (thank god for the bbc , sky , YouTube "I just tried to read that out loud all in 1 breath. Keeled over and woke up on the floor, wondering what had happened. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting how twisted around this thread has become. Sky News were, as far as I know, basically suspended for making shit up. Isn't it as simple as that? " What I see is a power grab by megalomaniacs based on a few people talking nonsense but let's take that nonsense you claim is dangerous, how many people have refused the vaccination based on somebody on Facebook who claims it allows the CIA to track you?. The answer is practically nobody, when it came to it pretty much everybody lined up to get vaccinated, yet based on this the entire free world now thinks we should be less free, medical experts who disagree with current thinking should be silenced and denounced as fringe lunatics, how do we progress if nobodys allowed to express there free opinions and ideas, the answer to bad ideas and bad speech is better ideas and better speech the truth always wins through, what do we need censorship for, to save ourselves from ourselves?. Joe biden said live on telly last week, get the jab and you won't get covid?. It's Not true, nobody fact checked him but most sensible people got his "drift". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting how twisted around this thread has become. Sky News were, as far as I know, basically suspended for making shit up. Isn't it as simple as that? What I see is a power grab by megalomaniacs based on a few people talking nonsense but let's take that nonsense you claim is dangerous, how many people have refused the vaccination based on somebody on Facebook who claims it allows the CIA to track you?. The answer is practically nobody, when it came to it pretty much everybody lined up to get vaccinated, yet based on this the entire free world now thinks we should be less free, medical experts who disagree with current thinking should be silenced and denounced as fringe lunatics, how do we progress if nobodys allowed to express there free opinions and ideas, the answer to bad ideas and bad speech is better ideas and better speech the truth always wins through, what do we need censorship for, to save ourselves from ourselves?. Joe biden said live on telly last week, get the jab and you won't get covid?. It's Not true, nobody fact checked him but most sensible people got his "drift"." The great thing about scientific research is that strong evidence can always be published, as has happened continuously, where there's a breaking from the traditional viewpoint. It doesn't need some lone voices peddling their unfounded 'theories' via YouTube, tiktok etc, many who spout conspiracy nonsense into the bargain. There are established pathways for getting new data and perspectives into the mainstream. As an example, there's a handful of people who have pushed very dangerous nonsense that's antivax through the pandemic, getting millions of views, shares etc. Their goal is to gain financially from destabilising our society but they do not publish actual valid research evidence data in the credible channels, because they don't earn that way. Foreign governments push the same BS, purely to weaken our country and some buy into it, perhaps it excites them, letting them feel special. From government leaders, we should expect the truth. I didn't see Biden's message last week but general truths of course don't mean that any 1 individual person will react the same way that statistical analyses clarify how a population will react. Thankfully the 2 tools that we have to reduce the damaging impact this virus has on us - vaccines and restrictions - are being used to some extent, to mitigate the effects of it. Some states, particularly Republican led, have had low vaccine take up rates and increasing infection levels are now pushing hospitals etc towards crisis points. They are turning their messages away from antivax and laissez faire, towards drives to increase vaccine takeup. The capital of Louisiana has hospitals that are filling again but the state has had low vaccine acceptance. Alabama and others are nearing crises too. New York and other places are reintroducing restrictions, whilst Florida is facing the opposite of its earlier freedoms from high virus challenges. There are more restrictions being imposed now, against messages that are against the public interest. The tech giants are doing some actual work to reduce the impact of those peddling disinformation and lies. The sum total of a barrage of heavily biased propaganda against the truth, does make real changes to people's choices. Sowing doubts and confusion can cause people to delay doing what's right for them. Sadly, for too many, wanting a vaccine when in ICU and possibly close to death from Covid, is too late. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting how twisted around this thread has become. Sky News were, as far as I know, basically suspended for making shit up. Isn't it as simple as that? What I see is a power grab by megalomaniacs based on a few people talking nonsense but let's take that nonsense you claim is dangerous, how many people have refused the vaccination based on somebody on Facebook who claims it allows the CIA to track you?. The answer is practically nobody, when it came to it pretty much everybody lined up to get vaccinated, yet based on this the entire free world now thinks we should be less free, medical experts who disagree with current thinking should be silenced and denounced as fringe lunatics, how do we progress if nobodys allowed to express there free opinions and ideas, the answer to bad ideas and bad speech is better ideas and better speech the truth always wins through, what do we need censorship for, to save ourselves from ourselves?. Joe biden said live on telly last week, get the jab and you won't get covid?. It's Not true, nobody fact checked him but most sensible people got his "drift". The great thing about scientific research is that strong evidence can always be published, as has happened continuously, where there's a breaking from the traditional viewpoint. It doesn't need some lone voices peddling their unfounded 'theories' via YouTube, tiktok etc, many who spout conspiracy nonsense into the bargain. There are established pathways for getting new data and perspectives into the mainstream. As an example, there's a handful of people who have pushed very dangerous nonsense that's antivax through the pandemic, getting millions of views, shares etc. Their goal is to gain financially from destabilising our society but they do not publish actual valid research evidence data in the credible channels, because they don't earn that way. Foreign governments push the same BS, purely to weaken our country and some buy into it, perhaps it excites them, letting them feel special. From government leaders, we should expect the truth. I didn't see Biden's message last week but general truths of course don't mean that any 1 individual person will react the same way that statistical analyses clarify how a population will react. Thankfully the 2 tools that we have to reduce the damaging impact this virus has on us - vaccines and restrictions - are being used to some extent, to mitigate the effects of it. Some states, particularly Republican led, have had low vaccine take up rates and increasing infection levels are now pushing hospitals etc towards crisis points. They are turning their messages away from antivax and laissez faire, towards drives to increase vaccine takeup. The capital of Louisiana has hospitals that are filling again but the state has had low vaccine acceptance. Alabama and others are nearing crises too. New York and other places are reintroducing restrictions, whilst Florida is facing the opposite of its earlier freedoms from high virus challenges. There are more restrictions being imposed now, against messages that are against the public interest. The tech giants are doing some actual work to reduce the impact of those peddling disinformation and lies. The sum total of a barrage of heavily biased propaganda against the truth, does make real changes to people's choices. Sowing doubts and confusion can cause people to delay doing what's right for them. Sadly, for too many, wanting a vaccine when in ICU and possibly close to death from Covid, is too late. " . What's the USA got to do with the UK, there's practically no low vaccination rates in the UK and if there is a slight bit it's in the bame category where PHE have worked hard in convincing them otherwise. France actually has the highest antivax record and the lowest turnout and already has the highest protection against what you can say or can't. There's no gold standard double blind trials (and the only one that exists found no correlation) on masks the entire thing is based on it might do some good but it won't do you want harm so it's worth implementing it. The idea that big money in big pharma is a problem is a genuine concern any other industry like banking, oil and gas, tech all see very critical dissenting voices and opinions and I don't see why pharma should be any different. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting how twisted around this thread has become. Sky News were, as far as I know, basically suspended for making shit up. Isn't it as simple as that? What I see is a power grab by megalomaniacs based on a few people talking nonsense but let's take that nonsense you claim is dangerous, how many people have refused the vaccination based on somebody on Facebook who claims it allows the CIA to track you?. The answer is practically nobody, when it came to it pretty much everybody lined up to get vaccinated, yet based on this the entire free world now thinks we should be less free, medical experts who disagree with current thinking should be silenced and denounced as fringe lunatics, how do we progress if nobodys allowed to express there free opinions and ideas, the answer to bad ideas and bad speech is better ideas and better speech the truth always wins through, what do we need censorship for, to save ourselves from ourselves?. Joe biden said live on telly last week, get the jab and you won't get covid?. It's Not true, nobody fact checked him but most sensible people got his "drift". The great thing about scientific research is that strong evidence can always be published, as has happened continuously, where there's a breaking from the traditional viewpoint. It doesn't need some lone voices peddling their unfounded 'theories' via YouTube, tiktok etc, many who spout conspiracy nonsense into the bargain. There are established pathways for getting new data and perspectives into the mainstream. As an example, there's a handful of people who have pushed very dangerous nonsense that's antivax through the pandemic, getting millions of views, shares etc. Their goal is to gain financially from destabilising our society but they do not publish actual valid research evidence data in the credible channels, because they don't earn that way. Foreign governments push the same BS, purely to weaken our country and some buy into it, perhaps it excites them, letting them feel special. From government leaders, we should expect the truth. I didn't see Biden's message last week but general truths of course don't mean that any 1 individual person will react the same way that statistical analyses clarify how a population will react. Thankfully the 2 tools that we have to reduce the damaging impact this virus has on us - vaccines and restrictions - are being used to some extent, to mitigate the effects of it. Some states, particularly Republican led, have had low vaccine take up rates and increasing infection levels are now pushing hospitals etc towards crisis points. They are turning their messages away from antivax and laissez faire, towards drives to increase vaccine takeup. The capital of Louisiana has hospitals that are filling again but the state has had low vaccine acceptance. Alabama and others are nearing crises too. New York and other places are reintroducing restrictions, whilst Florida is facing the opposite of its earlier freedoms from high virus challenges. There are more restrictions being imposed now, against messages that are against the public interest. The tech giants are doing some actual work to reduce the impact of those peddling disinformation and lies. The sum total of a barrage of heavily biased propaganda against the truth, does make real changes to people's choices. Sowing doubts and confusion can cause people to delay doing what's right for them. Sadly, for too many, wanting a vaccine when in ICU and possibly close to death from Covid, is too late. . What's the USA got to do with the UK, there's practically no low vaccination rates in the UK and if there is a slight bit it's in the bame category where PHE have worked hard in convincing them otherwise. France actually has the highest antivax record and the lowest turnout and already has the highest protection against what you can say or can't. There's no gold standard double blind trials (and the only one that exists found no correlation) on masks the entire thing is based on it might do some good but it won't do you want harm so it's worth implementing it. The idea that big money in big pharma is a problem is a genuine concern any other industry like banking, oil and gas, tech all see very critical dissenting voices and opinions and I don't see why pharma should be any different." It's worth following threads | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sky news Australia was suspended on youtube for spreading Covid misinformation. What do you think about this?" Shows the news only cares about news and not truth | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sky news Australia was suspended on youtube for spreading Covid misinformation. What do you think about this?" Sky news Australia is the murdoch arm of Fox News over there… so not surprised with the way they slant… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Was about to say Sky ..news... what a ultimate oxy moron and anyone care to cast their mind back to when the Camerloon got in to power he was on about doing away with the watch dog dealing with television and doing the same as in America ?? ( remove the need for balance etc etc ) but...and now we have "GB" news ...and now about the only news prog worthy of being called a news prog channel 4 and channel 4 is being flogged off to their media mates funny that ??" Sky news here is not the same operation as sky news Australia… Sky news here (and the entire sky Europe operation) is owned by Comcast, who are the people that own NBC in the US Sky news Australia is still owned by Rupert murdoch and is partnered with Fox News in the states | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sky news Australia was suspended on youtube for spreading Covid misinformation. What do you think about this?" I never watch the BBC or sky in our country as imo its all propaganda and misinformation I don't kmow about Australia but I'm guessing they are going against the government narrative so being censored | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
