Should Social Media shut down Conspiracy Theories?

[Emergent]

I understand that private entities can control what speech is put on their media. But is that a wise idea not to air alternative points of view on huge powerhouses such as Youtube, facebook, Twitter Etc?

I'm thinking specifically of this Plandemic lady. I, personally, have not viewed her video. I'm not interested in her particular point of view. I have never felt the need to investigate every conspiracy theory out there.

I do think there is a lot of paranoia in sothat might be well earned. Social media such as facebook and Youtube wield enormous power and influence over public opinion.

The government has pulled a lot of sneaky tricks on the public over the years. I don't trust them. I also don't trust the Chinese government.

I don't trust large pharmaceutical companies or the mega-corporations. Their lust for money, power and influence is insatiable.

Should we give social media giants, who practically hold monopolies on the public form, the abilities to shut down conspiracy theories? I'll bet there are some true ones out there.

[GamerNurseRN]

4 hours ago, Wuzzie said:

Their numbers were totally debunked by several epidemiologists. Also did you notice one of them stating he is being forced to sign COVID on death certificates which is highly unlikely since he works in an urgent care? Those kind of things go to the credibility of the person and it doesn't look too good for them. While I don't disagree that their area likely did not need a prolonged shut down they went too far when they applied their "statistics" (I use that term loosely) to the rest of the US. You simply can't compare Bakersfield California and NYC. I think the shut down was needed initially until we had more information but also agree that we cannot keep this going but that isn't what is being discussed here, that's another thread. We are discussing conspiracy theories and social media. Have you seen the new one where some dude is claiming that the COVID swab test is actually a secret vaccination? That is the stuff we are talking about here. Should that be allowed to percolate and do social media sites have the right to draw the line?

It sounds like we are more in agreement than you think. My beef was your implication that the only misinformation is coming from people who are reluctant to open. They are not all wackadoos. The ID brain trust at my large university institution collectively think the mortality rate for this is going to end up around 0.3-0.5% (much more than the flu) and a vaccine is realistically 4 years away. So they are understandably apprehensive about opening things up, especially because herd immunity without one is a big question mark at this time. There is nothing wrong with being cautious.

BTW, I am excluding the Cheeto in Chief in this discussion because I have a brain and thinking about him makes it hurt.

I think we are as well. And yes, I've seen the "Swab test vaccine" LOL Okay, yes we do agree on much more than I thought. Hahaha @ "Cheeto in Chief."

[GamerNurseRN]

1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Who has made this bolded claim or assertion? Scrutinizing claims which are counter to the opinions of the experts who have been placed in positions to lead us is normal and expected behavior. As Dr Fauci clarified in his testimony, he isn't making any recommendations on the economy, he is making recommendations to address the public health crisis that is killing Americans in breathtaking numbers.

Sigh. What I'm trying to say is there are other scientists and professors in the field who have a different take than Fauci, and they aren't getting airtime...it's all Fauci all the time. Dr. John Ioannidis (who makes the most sense from a scientific standpoint in imho) at Stanford is an example. The MSM smeared this guy and treated him like a kook. His resume is more impressive than Fauci's.

There's a good chance that we didn't have to shut down the entire country and most of the economy to mitigate this, and Dr. Ioannidis was attacked in the media for even suggesting it. I hope you are well. We are all weary and tired right now.

[TheDudeWithTheBigDog, ADN, RN]

On 5/12/2020 at 3:14 PM, Emergent said:

I think parents should have a right do not vaccinate their children, just as they have a right to feed them junk food.

I tend to fall in the libertarian philosophy for many things. There are some exceptions to that such as environmental protection and I do think we need a national Healthcare System.

I can't get behind this. My view, yeah, I was my mother's kid, not the government's, so I get the view of "my kid, my choice." But, what if my mom was against vaccinating, and I got something and died? What if I got measles when I was a kid and I'd be deaf right now? I'm the person that view never acknowledges even exists: the one who has to permanently live with the consequences. That's where I think libertarians, while they mean well, are missing the point behind these regulations and laws. There's times that I agree that the government steps in too much. But healthcare isn't the right place for that. Luckily my mother believed in vaccinating, but if she didn't, I can seriously owe my entire life right now to the fact that there were laws requiring her to get me those vaccines.

Now, as an adult, I think everyone should be able to make the choice for themselves, within reason. I can understand an oncology clinic requiring flu vaccines if you want a job, but working in a call center, that's your choice. But where I draw the line is when a different person is involved. If you choose not to vaccinate your kid, and that kid dies, who deals with the consequences? Yeah, you have to deal with the fact that your kid is dead and that's something that haunts people. But it's infinitely easier than being the kid that's dead.

I agree with libertarian views on personal choice that only affects you, but I honestly think it's an extremely selfish, contradictory philosophy when those views can affect another person's life. And going back on topic with spreading the complete lies about vaccines, I think stuff like that is dangerous and needs to be taken down. I support free speech, but I also support responsibility for that speech. If you want to yell at me and call me names because of who I vote for, fine. But if you're motivating a mother to not get her kid treatment because "big pharma just wants to make money off of you" and it dies, I think you're personally responsible for that kid's death. Who's rights were we really supposed to be looking at? The mother's rights to choose if her kid gets a vaccine, or the kid's right to actually be able to live a healthy life and not die as a kid to an easily preventable disease? A lot of these laws are actually there to PROTECT rights. We just have a twisted view in this country of WHO'S rights matter in the situation.

[toomuchbaloney]

3 hours ago, GamerNurseRN said:

Sigh. What I'm trying to say is there are other scientists and professors in the field who have a different take than Fauci, and they aren't getting airtime...it's all Fauci all the time. Dr. John Ioannidis (who makes the most sense from a scientific standpoint in imho) at Stanford is an example. The MSM smeared this guy and treated him like a kook. His resume is more impressive than Fauci's.

There's a good chance that we didn't have to shut down the entire country and most of the economy to mitigate this, and Dr. Ioannidis was attacked in the media for even suggesting it. I hope you are well. We are all weary and tired right now.

I don't understand this thinking.

Drs Redfield, Birx, Adams, Messonnier, Fauci and others are paid to guide us through these crisis because of their expertise, experience and credentials. They are part of the federal pandemic response team Are we all of a sudden shopping for different expert opinions in the midst of a public health crisis? Why? What about the opinion that we have invested in is deficient or flawed or untrustworthy? Wishful thinking that people would have mitigated this contagion spread without recommendations from their state and local health experts is just wishful thinking. Even with mitigation recommendations Americans are rebelling in high enough numbers to insure that we will bury 100k Americans before independence day. In order for mitigation efforts to be broadly successful the efforts and behaviors must be widespread, well communicated, explained in ways that everyone can understand, and modeled as a patriotic duty from the leadership down.

[GamerNurseRN]

17 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

I don't understand this thinking.

Drs Redfield, Birx, Adams, Messonnier, Fauci and others are paid to guide us through these crisis because of their expertise, experience and credentials. They are part of the federal pandemic response team Are we all of a sudden shopping for different expert opinions in the midst of a public health crisis? Why? What about the opinion that we have invested in is deficient or flawed or untrustworthy? Wishful thinking that people would have mitigated this contagion spread without recommendations from their state and local health experts is just wishful thinking. Even with mitigation recommendations Americans are rebelling in high enough numbers to insure that we will bury 100k Americans before independence day. In order for mitigation efforts to be broadly successful the efforts and behaviors must be widespread, well communicated, explained in ways that everyone can understand, and modeled as a patriotic duty from the leadership down.

Okay, you win. Let's just keep printing money out of thin air to the point where it's as valuable as monopoly money as we stay quarantined forever. These blue state governors are bastardizing what Fauci is saying and everyone knows it. ...people in Michigan can't go outside in their yards even if they live out in the country....yeah...that's some mitigation right there. Maybe a few more nanny state drones in NJ as well to spy on people who want to play catch in their own yards. THAT is what I'm talking about.

How did Florida do so well? Heavily populated with seniors, yet has the lowest senior death rate.

[FolksBtrippin, BSN, RN]

On 5/13/2020 at 7:06 PM, hherrn said:

Same question I have asked others, but very little response:

Do you support complete, unfettered access, including Nazis, Klan, and pedophiles?

I believe that advocating this is a legitimate position, with which I disagree.

If not, then you accept some sort of control.

What are your thoughts?

Good question.

I believe in protecting free speech.

Speech has a definition. Speech is the expression of thought.

Should pedophiles, nazis and Klan have free speech, yes. But let's be clear about what speech is.

Child Mediaography is not speech. And it's criminal and should not be protected in any way with the guilty party punished.

As for Nazis and Klan, it is speech if it is expression of thought. It is not protected speech if it is a threat or incitement of violence.

Example: "Short people are inferior." = free speech

"Short people, surrender your assets to me or I will kill you." = not free speech, and a threat.

"We kill all the short people midnight tonight" = not free speech and incitement of violence.

That's my position in a nutshell.

[herring_RN, ASN, BSN]

1 hour ago, GamerNurseRN said:

Okay, you win. Let's just keep printing money out of thin air to the point where it's as valuable as monopoly money as we stay quarantined forever. These blue state governors are bastardizing what Fauci is saying and everyone knows it. ...people in Michigan can't go outside in their yards even if they live out in the country....yeah...that's some mitigation right there. Maybe a few more nanny state drones in NJ as well to spy on people who want to play catch in their own yards. THAT is what I'm talking about.

How did Florida do so well? Heavily populated with seniors, yet has the lowest senior death rate.

I bolded the untrue part of your opinion. When people make errors of fact their opinion is not likely to be taken seriously.

From Michigan Governor Whitmer's executive order

... All individuals who leave their home or place of residence must adhere to social distancing measures recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), including remaining at least six feet from people from outside the individual’s household to the extent feasible under the circumstances... https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/0,9309,7-387-90499_90705-528460--,00.html

[Wlaurie, RN]

Depends if you want to live in a free society anymore. I believe in letting people make up their own minds and that there was room for more than one opinion in this country. Lately, I'm starting to think a whole lot of higher ups want us all thinking one right way and there is no room for dissent.

[Guest219794]

14 minutes ago, Wlaurie said:

Depends if you want to live in a free society anymore. I believe in letting people make up their own minds and that there was room for more than one opinion in this country. Lately, I'm starting to think a whole lot of higher ups want us all thinking one right way and there is no room for dissent.

Not following- are you saying there should be no restrictions on facebook, or Youtube, whatsoever?

[Guest219794]

1 hour ago, FolksBtrippin said:

Good question.

I believe in protecting free speech.

Speech has a definition. Speech is the expression of thought.

Should pedophiles, nazis and Klan have free speech, yes. But let's be clear about what speech is.

Child Mediaography is not speech. And it's criminal and should not be protected in any way with the guilty party punished.

As for Nazis and Klan, it is speech if it is expression of thought. It is not protected speech if it is a threat or incitement of violence.

Example: "Short people are inferior." = free speech

"Short people, surrender your assets to me or I will kill you." = not free speech, and a threat.

"We kill all the short people midnight tonight" = not free speech and incitement of violence.

That's my position in a nutshell.

What you laid out is pretty much how the First Amendment is interpreted, and applies to government restriction of free speech.

I support the right of the Klan and Nazis to demonstrate. I would also support anybody who threw human feces on them while doing so. And, I fully support the right of a private entity to refuse to give them a platform.

The videos in question were in no way censored by the government. Private entities chose to take them down because of the harm they might do.

Obviously they have a line. The videos in question crossed that line.

[toomuchbaloney]

30 minutes ago, hherrn said:

What you laid out is pretty much how the First Amendment is interpreted, and applies to government restriction of free speech.

I support the right of the Klan and Nazis to demonstrate. I would also support anybody who threw human feces on them while doing so. And, I fully support the right of a private entity to refuse to give them a platform.

The videos in question were in no way censored by the government. Private entities chose to take them down because of the harm they might do.

Obviously they have a line. The videos in question crossed that line.

I agree except the counter protesters shouldn't be able to throw anything at anyone...freedom of speech doesn't include that behavior. They can, however, defend themselves when the easily triggered hate mongers lose their cool and get violent.

[Emergent, RN]

You've chosen to ignore content by toomuchbaloney.