How do you feel about the free market de-platforming authoritarians?

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

[Still-alive]

They’re just doing what is their right to do

[Snakeyes7]

What did MTG do?

[goaded]

Pandemic misinformation. Fifth strike.

[Snakeyes7]

@goaded How is that authoritarian? Is she using this misinformation to suggest an increase to state power?

[goaded]

I don't know, maybe she just happens to be authoritarian as well as not caring if people die (people are dying from not getting vaccinated). Wanting to overturn the clear results of an election is authoritarian.

[Snakeyes7]

@goaded I don't know what she says but not wanting vaccine mandates is not the same as wanting people to die from the lack of a vaccine, taking away the vaccine does which I highly doubt is what she argues.

Also does she want to overturn the election results or does she want an investigation? People who say either are regarded as fascists either way despite the democrats crying Russia for the first couple years of Trump and it ended up being nothing. Maybe some call them commies but not for that reason.

[goaded]

In this case she was calling Omicron "sneezes, coughs, and runny noses", despite people already having died of it, while telling off a fellow Republican who had requested FEMA action "we saw happen during the Trump administration.".

Have you not been paying attention to the January 6th investigation? Of course they wanted to overturn the election, and the lies about fraud were just a pretext.

[joeldalton]

@Snakeyes7 - the original question asker likes to use doublespeak. HE thinks he's witty using the word authoritarian to describe freedom.

What MTG did was quote VAERS data, which tech companies have deemed to be 'misinformation', with no basis.

[goaded]

@joeldalton Not in that tweet, she didn't. Maybe one of her other four strikes.

[Snakeyes7]

@goaded Covid is mainly a respiratory disease so yes she is wrong about those symptoms except for the cough. I think it is up to the people to decide that not Twitter, that way people would see where MTG was wrong instead of removing the tweet and saying it was just misinformation and it would be better if it never saw the light of day.

I think both January 6th and the election needs to be investigated. Problem is, both sides (the fringest of them to be fair) would call me an "authoritarian" for wanting that but for different reasons. As far as MTG goes, I don't know where her stance on either case is. Maybe she, personally, wants the same as I do but I don't know that because I haven't looked into it.

[goaded]

You can't deny that one of the symptoms in some cases is death, which is a bit more important than any she mentioned.

The elections have been investigated. There have been recounts and audits, none of which found anything that would have changed the results, and certainly no evidence of the kind of fraud claimed by Trump (which he was also claiming in 2016, but saw no need as president to look into).

[Snakeyes7]

@goaded nearly every disease can kill you, why does death need to be mentioned? Especially for a stupid Twitter post?

If that's the case then fine, if the left stops saying that Trump a bad guy for doing literally the exact same thing the democrats did when he won. Then it makes them look like hypocrites.

[goaded]

The Democrats have never conspired to overturn an election. Nobody ever has, until Trump. Nobody has ever encouraged violence to that end, either, nor lied about election fraud. You should watch Biden's speech from yesterday.

"The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned against describing the Omicron variant as mild, saying it is killing people across the world.

... the number of global cases has increased by 71% in the last week, and in the Americas by 100%. It said that among severe cases worldwide, 90% were unvaccinated.

"While Omicron does appear to be less severe compared to Delta, especially in those vaccinated, it does not mean it should be categorised as mild," Dr Tedros told a press conference on Thursday.

"Just like previous variants, Omicron is hospitalising people and it is killing people.""
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-59901547

[Snakeyes7]

@goaded Not sure what other purpose the left had with blaming Russia for the results of an election with, what it turns out to be, no evidence. Also, there were many "not my president" riots where, just like BLM in 2020, very fiery but "mostly peaceful" protests with people saying “there will be casualties on both sides” and smashing people's cars.

Ok, whats your point? You can die from the flu so people can usually put together that abnormalities in your body caused by the flu can lead to death if you have a weak immune system. Most sites you look up for the flu assume you aren't dead and put death as a bit of a side note. Why should even tweets be labeled as "misinformation" if one doesn't include death as a side effect of covid especially if you are limited by characters.

[goaded]

No evidence, other than his campaign manager passing internal campaign documents to Russian agents, not to mention the hacking that happened days after Trump called for it? And that's just a couple of things. People don't get convicted of obstruction of justice if they didn't have anything to hide.

[goaded]

Oh, and apparently, she insisted on posting numbers from VAERS despite them being unverified and probably spammed. (Anyone at all can make an entry, someone claimed a vaccine turned him into the Hulk.)

"VAERS reports alone generally cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. Some reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. VAERS reports often lack contextual information, such as total vaccinations given or information on unvaccinated groups for comparison. Most reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they may be subject to biases. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind."

[Snakeyes7]

@goaded If what you say is true then I guess the fact that it either wasn't mentioned in the final hearing tells me that those actions were irrelevant to the case. I am not sure why we would be told there was no evidence otherwise.

Ok so instead of banning her, why not have someone respond to use better sources? That would do a far better job at telling everyone why she is full of shit.

[goaded]

Which final hearing? This came out after the Mueller Report. It would probably have come out sooner, if multiple people hadn't obstructed justice (and had their convictions commuted by Trump in a clear conflict of interest, which itself would have resulted in impeachment of any other president).
en.wikipedia.org/.../Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

"Ok so instead of banning her, why not have someone respond to use better sources? That would do a far better job at telling everyone why she is full of shit. "
Unfortunately, that's not how social media works. Saying something wrong that people like to hear gets amplified beyond imagining in minutes. Saying it was wrong doesn't get repeated at all.

Unless social media gets required by law to ensure that every person who saw the original lie or misinformation must be shown any counter fact-check and acknowledge it, popular lies will continue to overshadow unpopular truths online.

Banning is a crude tool, but well within the rights of the private companies to use.

[Snakeyes7]

@goaded I was talking about the Muller report. I cannot speak of what obstruction of justice there was but I remember it coming out and saying all that Russia hysteria was all for nothing. I have seen many TV hosts like Rachel Maddow burst into tears over it.

I rarely use Twitter so I understand that I am not all that sure how it works but how do certain ideas get amplified and some don't and how does Twitter make that distinction. I understand why banning exists such as threats of physical harm or death, blackmail, spam and stalking but information that Twitter considers "misinformation" (again I would argue that they shouldn't be the ones to determine that. They aren't arbiters of truth) seems like a really stupid reason to ban them. If someone comes out to say that toothpaste is a great way to clean a computer screen, I think it should be up to the people to say that that person is full of shit. I remember when You Tube had a dislike button, now they removed how many disliked a video so now people can say as much shit as they want and no one can easily see that the user is full of it.

[goaded]

See, that would be one of those comfortable lies. Barr basically lied about the findings, leaving out the fact that Mueller said his report *would not* accuse the president of a crime, even if he found evidence, Barr made out that there was no evidence of a crime (in which case the report would have exonerated Trump, which it explicitly did not).

"In July 2019, Mueller testified to Congress that a president could be charged with crimes including obstruction of justice after the president left office." (Section II of his report was all about the ways his investigation was obstructed.)

"... how do certain ideas get amplified and some don't and how does Twitter make that distinction."
It doesn't. It is simply more likely to show you things that people you "know" have liked or re-tweeted, the things with the most "engagement".

People are more likely to re-tweet or like postings they like, like "VAERS shows vastly more deaths from covid vaccines than any other vaccine, the government is hushing it up!", than postings they don't, like "No, anybody can claim to have died from the vaccine, nobody had heard of VAERS until it was publicised on the net (so previously only medical people made genuine entries), and the entries stay in the database even when found to be bogus." (I don't know if that very last part is true, but you get the idea. Since reported side-effects of the vaccine apparently include "Death of pet" and "Death of family member", it seems quite likely to be true.)

People are far less likely to re-post something that says they were wrong than something they think proves they are right. Misinformation is a emergent property of a simple system.