this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024

-126 points (10.6% liked)

News

23267 readers

3053 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

-126

Donald Trump Wins US Presidency for a Second Time (www.bloomberg.com)

submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

127 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Trump won USA Presidential Elections 🎉🇺🇸😁😁 Who is going to celebrate tonight? 🍾🎈

I do truly look forward for it 🤗

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 50 points 2 days ago (2 children)

That's not fascism or the vilification of a group. It's just common sense and for the greater good. Fascism is what the US is about to have for the next 4 years under Trump. And hopefully it's only 4 years.

[+] [email protected] -37 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Forcing medical procedures on people, threatening them with arrest if they go outside, and censoring info about the vaccine is "for the greater good"? All while the people who were supposed to be protecting us were blatantly breaking their own regulations? How so? Would you throw every American in prison if it meant people were "safer"? What happened to "my body, my choice"?

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Your sources are absolute shit. Try harder.

[+] [email protected] -24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Are you saying these things didn't happen? What's wrong with my sources? And again would you imprison the whole country in the name of "safety"?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm saying your sources are absolute shit because that's not fascism.

[+] [email protected] -12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the sources. That's just disagreeing with my point. But how is imprisoning people for going outside not fascism?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm not disagreeing with your sources. I'm disagreeing with you. You're the one saying these actions are fascist. And I'm telling you it's not. I suggest you do some actual reading on fascism before sitting there saying that implementing public health measure for a once-in-a-century virus outbreak that's killed tens of millions is fascism.

[+] [email protected] -8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

You started off by saying my sources are bad, which is, by definition, disagreeing with them. Also, you haven't explained how imprisoning people for going outside and censoring information isn't fascist. I'm certain that fascists throughout history have done and defended stuff like this for the exact same reasons you are - "for the greater good," "for the sake of public health," etc. Maybe we should throw everyone in prison and never let them speak to each other in-person anymore so communicable diseases like COVID can never spread again, since if you do fascist things because you think you're right, that makes it not fascism.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The difference is Covid was justified.

[+] [email protected] -6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So it isn't fascism when you think it's justified. Would you say the same thing about genocide or persecuton? How are are you willing to go with the idea that the ends justify the means?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It isn't fascism when healthcare systems get overwhelmed, an unprecedented level of people are dying, and every expert was advising for the measures that were implemented (and more in a lot of cases). There were reasons these rules were put in place. And it wasn't for anyone's ego or political points.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So in other words... The ends justify the means?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Really? That sounds like what you're saying: it's acceptable to censor information, criminalize going outsid and not wearing a piece of cloth if it's for a good cause. Namely, it's okay to do these things if fewer people die of a disease. This is, in fact, justifying the means by pointing to the goal (the ends). Can you explain the distinction between what you're saying and how I've explained it?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You're sources don't support the censorship of information. Just calling out supposed "vaccine hesitancy" and saying to stop it due to its impact on the public health. And yes temporary measure to wear masks and isolate is perfectly acceptable given the circumstances.

I would suggest you actually lookup examples of fascism and compare it to what yoy see today. Try send connect the dots.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Literally the first paragraph from the article by the US Congress:

Newly released documents show that the White House has played a major role in censoring Americans on social media. Email exchanges between Rob Flaherty, the White House’s director of digital media, and social-media executives prove the companies put Covid censorship policies in place in response to relentless, coercive pressure from the White House—not voluntarily. The emails emerged Jan. 6 in the discovery phase of Missouri v. Biden, a free-speech case brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana and four private plaintiffs represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance.

And now you admit that the ends justify the means?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Don't cherrypick quotes. What does the next 2 paragraph say?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm not sure why you're insisting on not actually reading the document but alright:

On March 14, 2021, Mr. Flaherty emailed a Facebook executive (whose name we’ve redacted as a courtesy) with the subject line “You are hiding the ball” and a link to a Washington Post article about Facebook’s own research into “the spread of ideas that contribute to vaccine hesitancy,” as the paper put it. “I think there is a misunderstanding,” the executive wrote back. “I don’t think this is a misunderstanding,” Mr. Flaherty replied. “We are gravely concerned that your service is one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancy—period. . . . We want to know that you’re trying, we want to know how we can help, and we want to know that you’re not playing a shell game. . . . This would all be a lot easier if you would just be straight with us.”

Emphasis mine is the government explaining the need for, and the demanding, censorship.

Next paragraph:

On March 21, after failing to placate Mr. Flaherty, the Facebook executive sent an email detailing the company’s planned policy changes. They included “removing vaccine misinformation” and “reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation.” Facebook characterized this material as “often-true content” that “can be framed as sensation, alarmist, or shocking.” Facebook pledged to “remove these Groups, Pages, and Accounts when they are disproportionately promoting this sensationalized content.”

This paragraph details how Facebook, under pressure from the government, agreed to remove information. That is, the government censored information. If you'd like to argue that a private individual being coerced into deleting something isn't censorship, then perhaps you'd say the same about a newspaper being forced to not run a story about a government killing?

And for the sake of getting further context, let's look at the next few paragraphs:

In that exchange, Mr. Flaherty demanded to know what Facebook was doing to “limit the spread of viral content” on WhatsApp, a private message app, especially “given its reach in immigrant communities and communities of color.” The company responded three weeks later with a lengthy list of promises.

Further explaining government demands for censorship.

On April 9, Mr. Flaherty asked “what actions and changes you’re making to ensure . . . you’re not making our country’s vaccine hesitancy problem worse.” He faulted the company for insufficient zeal in earlier efforts to control political speech: “In the electoral context, you tested and deployed an algorithmic shift that promoted quality news and information about the election. . . . You only did this, however, after an election that you helped increase skepticism in, and an insurrection which was plotted, in large part, by your platform. And then you turned it back off. I want some assurances, based in data, that you are not doing the same thing again here.” The executive’s response: “Understood.”

The government, again, demands censorship.

On April 23, Mr. Flaherty sent the executive an internal memo that he claimed had been circulating in the White House. It asserts that “Facebook plays a major role in the spread of COVID vaccine misinformation” and accuses the company of, among other things, “failure to monitor events hosting anti-vaccine and COVID disinformation” and “directing attention to COVID-skeptics/anti-vaccine ‘trusted’ messengers.

More pressure from the government.

On May 10, the executive sent Mr. Flaherty a list of steps Facebook had taken “to increase vaccine acceptance.” Mr. Flaherty scoffed, “Hard to take any of this seriously when you’re actively promoting anti-vaccine pages in search,” and linked to an NBC reporter’s tweet. The executive wrote back: “Thanks Rob—both of the accounts featured in this tweet have been removed from Instagram entirely for breaking our policies.”

And this is a very clear example of censorship happening.

I think you get the idea. If you'd like to dispute what the article says, why don't you read it yourself?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You're conflating information with misinformation. The quotes say misinformation, not information.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So it's okay to force private companies to remove it if the government says it's false?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Not "if the government says it's false" if it is false. Why are you accepting being lied to?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't know why you're accepting a boot on your neck. The Supreme Court is clear that the government cannot regulate the speech of an organization simply because they don't like the content. If you would like to give the government the right to determine what is and isn't true and thus permissible on social media, that would mean Trump could rightly censor whatever claims/information he wanted - say, trans rights promotion, immigration assistance, and the like.

Also, here's some information about what was being censored:

The link between vaccines and thrombosis
The vaccines were not as effective as they were stated by the media - in fact, despite this article's hair-splitting, you can still find a number of sites claiming this.
Surgical masks aren't particularly effective at stopping infections, at least partly due to poor use of them. If you give something to the general public and they cannot use it effectively, it is not an effective tool.
Another source on the masks matter.

I'm glad we're clear that you think the ends justify the means.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The Supreme Court ruling doesn't apply here since we already established we were talking about the distribution of misinformation.

Your list of censored opinions is ridiculous given they're openly accessible, not to mention the fact that they don't help your case at al.

The first link is from a publicly funded institution, so not censored, and the study corroborates that the benefits outweigh the cons for vaccines:

There is a broad consensus that the benefits of vaccination greatly outweigh the potential risks of rare vaccine side effects, such as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). Therefore, the importance of vaccination should be emphasized. This statement aims to focus on VITT.

Second bullet point is a frivolous lawsuit that never went anywhere.

Third bullet point is inconclusive and said more studies is needed. Furthermore, it's not COVID specific.

Same with the fourth bullet point.

So far, you've given me complete bullshit to support some stupid and incorrect claim that vaccine and mask mandates are fascist and then tried to actually justify their ineffectiveness using sources that don't even support your claims and sometimes even contradicts it.

I am not going to bother responding to you anymore. It's clear you'd rather perpetrate misinformation than actually look at the evidence in front of your eyes. I only made this last comment to make sure anyone reading this how much misinformation you've been producing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Yes, it does apply, because the entirety of what I've posted below was classified as "misinformation" and thus removed under pressure from the government. That is censorship. The Supreme Court found you cannot be forced to not publish information from a source the government doesn't like. The scope of the censorship was specific to social media - again, this information was deleted by Facebook under pressure from the government.

Simply because the government believes the benefits outweigh the risks does not mean people shouldn't be informed of the risks; that would be censorship, which was what the government did to Facebook and Twitter.

My point there was to point out the efficacy claims were not as straightforward as the media claimed; government didn't like that truth, so it was censored.

You're splitting hairs on the remaining points. The point is that the link between surgical masks and the spread of diseases was not what the media claimed. The government didn't want that to be known, and thus it was removed from social media.

I'm not sure if you're willfully misinterpreting and downplaying my statements, but the lengths you'll go to defend censorship and pointless imprisonment are startling. A society should function on the basis of doing good so that good may come, not doing bad so that good may come. I don't see what's so controversial about that. I'm only producing information that's been published already. You're the one defending what would rightly be called government overreach while refusing to explain what the distinction between is and fascism is.

Again, your arguments could be used to justify Trump removing pro-trans and pro-immigration information from social media. I don't want anyone to have that power.