The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Twitter Is a Publisher
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Section 230 protections should not apply:

Twitter hides this tweet from the president’s timeline with the following explanation:

This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible.

The word “most” would more fairly be rendered as “some”–the young, those without co-morbidities, etc–and the word “far” probably shouldn’t be in there at all. But the points are all worthy of consideration. There are lots of influenza vaccinations. Their effectiveness varies and is never anything close to perfectly effective. Consequently, humans have learned to live with the flu just as we’ve learned to live with other coronaviruses.

 
• Category: Ideology, Science • Tags: Health, Social Media 
Hide 36 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Curle says:

    Can you spell out your argument a little more? Twitter is a publisher under sec. 230 b/c their “misleading” claim is an editorial?

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Audacious Epigone
  2. Tusk says:

    Twitter, Facebook and co pretending they know anything about what is and isn’t correct regarding COVID is so laughable. MSM repeats fraudulent claims, such as HQC doesn’t work, what are totally contrary to the academic findings but yet they get a free pass. These people should be liable for all the damage they’ve done.

  3. God-Emperor Trump has successfully transmuted the Covid gom jabbar. “Herd immunity” is no longer necessary; Trump has achieved Heldenimmunity!

    Clap for that, you stupid bastards.

    • LOL: Buzz Mohawk
  4. anon[261] • Disclaimer says:
    @Curle

    “Misleading” is an editorial decision. Therefore Twatter is a publisher in Epigone’s opinion, and I concur.

    If Janey is talking to Suzy about what Debbie said to Taylor via a cellphone, there won’t be any entity breaking into the convo to proclaim anything misleading. Cellphone companies are carriers, they don’t perform editorial functions.

    The same gossip via email won’t be tampered with by any ISP. Again, common carriers.

    But Fakebook and Twatter especially will actively curate what people can and cannot say. Those are editorial decisions, and that makes them publishers. Sooner or later a court will be asked to decide what “publisher” means vs. “carrier”. A publisher is responsible for a whole lot more than a common carrier, and can be sued more easily for damages.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act

  5. Trump’s tweet expresses pretty much what I think. The fact that it comes from a man who actually has Covid makes it even better. Twitter is evil.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon, A123
  6. It is a publisher, and therefore should be sued. When it steps in to “explain” and hide a President’s tweet it is admitting to the world that it isn’t a platform. Why haven’t lawyers made them pay?

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  7. dfordoom says: • Website

    I’m not sure it’s a smart line for Trump to take. The only reason we probably will have to learn to live with COVID is because so many western governments, especially the US Government, failed so dismally to control the problem when it first arose.

    So what Trump is saying in effect is that because he screwed up so badly we now have to learn to live with yet another virus that is likely to kill people on a similar scale to the flu, year in and year out. That doesn’t sound to me like an approach that will win him the election.

    As for Twitter, all social media is inherently evil and should be destroyed. But that won’t happen, because money.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
  8. @dfordoom

    This is illogical. “Controlling” the virus would not prevent us from having to deal with it in the future. Only stopping it from ever being able to enter our population in the future would prevent us from having to deal with it, and the only way to do that is by wiping out the virus completely, which was not something in our power at any time since the pandemic started.

    You can point to countries like New Zealand or Taiwan, but they are only gambling that no one will introduce it again. If they open their borders again, they will either have to (a) deal with it in the future or (b) suffer continuous recurrent lockdowns forever (which is its own way of learning to deal with it).

    People (like you) don’t seem to understand that there are qualitative differences between diseases like HIV, which it is entirely possible to stop transmission of and force to die out, and widespread, highly infectious respiratory diseases arising from animal populations, which it is not realistic to stop or eradicate.

    If you think eradication was a viable strategy, you have to ask yourself why we haven’t eradicated influenza or the common cold.

    The only chance the world had was at the very beginning of the outbreak, but since the virus wasn’t even recognized by the Chinese as a novel pathogen until it had already spread widely, that was probably not a realistic possibility either.

    • Agree: RoatanBill
    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Freiriger
  9. Realist says:

    The word “most” would more fairly be rendered as “some”–the young, those without co-morbidities, etc–and the word “far” probably shouldn’t be in there at all

    Wrong. The vast majority of people are unaffected by Covid…except for the dumbass, shutdown of our economy, shaming and laws requiring mask wearing.

    Without of false attribution to Covid, as the cause of death, on many death certificates…the death rate would be similar to normal flu.

  10. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Chrisnonymous

    You can point to countries like New Zealand or Taiwan, but they are only gambling that no one will introduce it again. If they open their borders again, they will either have to (a) deal with it in the future or (b) suffer continuous recurrent lockdowns forever (which is its own way of learning to deal with it).

    And countries like New Zealand and Taiwan are in that position because of the failures of countries like the US.

    But what is really at issue here is how voters are going to perceive Trump’s performance in this area. The fact that lockdowns seem to enjoy majority support just about everywhere would seem to indicate that people want the virus eradicated. When Trump tells them that they’ll just have to put up with another 100,000 deaths every year they might not take too kindly to that. They might well ask what the hell is the point of a government that cannot deal with a crisis. They might well ask what the hell they are paying taxes for.

    I agree that in countries like the US it’s now too late to do anything. But I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect people to be happy about it.

    But who knows? Voters are wildly irrational creatures.

  11. The New Jersey Supreme Court interpreted the free-speech provisions of the state constitution as extending to private owners of shopping malls as well as to state action in New Jersey Coalition Against War in the Middle East v. J.M.B. Realty Corp. (1994). Before deciding New Jersey Coalition Against the War, the New Jersey Supreme Court had decided State v. Schmid (1980), which required the court to balance individual expression rights with property rights in the context of free speech at a privately owned university. Schmid articulated three factors: (1) the nature, purpose and primary use of such private property; (2) the extent and nature of the public’s invitation to use that property; and (3) the purpose of the expressive activity undertaken on such property in relation to both the private and public use of the property. After applying the Schmid test, the New Jersey Supreme Court reasoned in New Jersey Coalition that because the mall owners “have intentionally transformed their property into a public square or market, a public gathering place, a downtown business district, a community,” they cannot later deny their own implied invitation to use the space as it was clearly intended.

    https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-assembly/assembly-on-private-property/

    Twitter and Facebook seem to be “a public square”, a “gathering place” and “a community” to me. Someone who is censored should sue them in NJ.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  12. @dfordoom

    The only thing that would have eradicated the virus would have been a total lockdown that constrained most people to their home for months under threat of imprisonment, as well as cancelling all international travel for at least the year. The former would be almost impossible to pull off in the U.S. and the latter couldn’t happen as international travel is an ideological imperative of the U.S. government. Yeah, lots will blame drumpf, but it’s still ridiculous.

    It’s like blaming Reagan for not solving the aids crisis. Was it doable? Sure, by outlawing homosexuality and aggressively investigating and prosecuting offenders. But something tells me the people who hold this view wouldn’t be in favour of the solution.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
  13. @Bragadocious

    Why haven’t lawyers made them pay?

    Because they are a part of the deep state mechanism.

  14. A123 says:

    Facebook is worse than Twitter (1)

    Radio host Mark Levin, affectionately known as “The Great One,” says Facebook is censoring his content.

    “Facebook has just sent us this message. It’s a clear effort at censorship,” Levin wrote on Monday morning.

    “Every link I post is from a legitimate source,” Levin wrote on his Facebook page. “But because so many people are seeing what I’m posting and we’re within weeks of the election it’s clear that Facebook is trying to influence the election’s outcome. It’s also clear Facebook is pushing a leftwing agenda. I’ll address this tonight on radio.”

    Levin has been an unabashed supporter of President Trump, so the sudden “censorship” of his Facebook page with fewer than 30 days to go in the presidential campaign raised eyebrows and drew criticism on social media.

    “It seems apparent both traditional and social media have abandoned truth and integrity in order to push the false narratives of systemic racism and oppression and to push forward socialism that leads to communism. This is a blatant attempt to undermine and destroy our republic,” wrote one Twitterer.

    The first act of Trump’s 2nd term should be use of Eminent Domain to seize Facebook, at book value.

    PEACE 😇
    _______

    (1) https://tennesseestar.com/2020/10/05/mark-levin-facebook-is-censoring-my-content/

  15. @dfordoom

    I wonder if getting a vaccine available to the public will serve as a sort of placebo effect that will lead to fear of Covid lifting like a fog across the country.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  16. @Curle

    I’m not going to be able to improve on anon’s reply.

  17. Mark G. says:
    @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    The former would be almost impossible to pull off in the U.S. and the latter couldn’t happen as international travel is an ideological imperative of the U.S. government

    .

    It is an ideological imperative of the U.S. government and making it even more difficult was the fact that the globalist ideology of all international organizations caused them to back it too. For example the WHO was against travel bans:

    https://summit.news/2020/01/31/who-orders-countries-not-to-engage-in-stigma-or-discrimination-in-response-to-coronavirus-outbreak/

    Here in the U.S. Biden was against travel bans:

    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/04/03/biden-flip-flops-now-supports-trumps-travel-ban-with-china-he-once-called-hysterical-xenophobia-n384575

    So were House Democrats:

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/03/11/democrat-response-to-coronavirus-end-trumps-travel-bans-on-china-iran/

    The first country to try to put into effect travel bans was Italy. China banned all travel out of Wuhan to the rest of China in late January but continued to allow travel to Italy. When the Italian government tried to ban travel from China, Chinese diplomats in Italy protested. The media accused them of being racist xenophobes and Chinese people in Italy along with many Italians protested too. One mayor in Italy encouraged Italians to go up and hug the nearest Chinese person.

    Over here in the American city soon to be hit hardest, New York mayor DeBlasio and Speaker Corey Johnson were encouraging New Yorkers to go out. Said Johnson:

    “It is important to support the Chinese community in New York City. Unfortunately many businesses and restaurants in Chinatown, Flushing and Sunset Park are suffering because some customers are afraid of the coronavirus. But those fears are not based on facts and science. The risk of infection to New Yorkers is low. There is no need to avoid public spaces. I urge everyone to dine and shop as usual.”

    I googled to see what Cuomo was saying about travel bans. I found lots of mainstream media articles of him saying they were needed three months later but couldn’t find anything where he was encouraging them early on when it actually would have made a difference.

    So when a travel ban might have made a difference, Trump was certainly not blameless but he had plenty of company in being slow to support them.

    • Replies: @res
  18. res says:
    @Mark G.

    I thought the best part was the NYC Heath Commissioner encouraging people to celebrate Chinese New Year.
    https://www.amny.com/editorial/city-leaders-seek-to-allay-fears-of-coronavirus-in-chinatown/

  19. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Audacious Epigone

    I wonder if getting a vaccine available to the public will serve as a sort of placebo effect that will lead to fear of Covid lifting like a fog across the country.

    That’s assuming the vaccine is going to be safe and effective. What are the chances that a vaccine rushed into production without long-term testing will turn out to be safe and effective? Rushing a vaccine onto the market is just a political stunt (and a chance for pharmaceutical companies to enrich themselves).

    It’s also assuming that you can persuade enough people to volunteer to take a vaccine that might turn out to be neither safe nor effective.

    Would you personally volunteer to take a vaccine that has had no long-term testing?

    • Replies: @A123
    , @Audacious Epigone
  20. @anon

    People don’t need to wait for a court, and President Trump doesn’t need to wait for §230 to be repealed, as he recently squealed (seriously, there are days when Trump appears to reprise the role of Ned Beatty’s character in Deliverance). Someone needs to complain to the FCC and ask why §230 applies to to FaceBag and Twatter in the first place.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  21. A123 says:
    @dfordoom

    Would you personally volunteer to take a vaccine that has had no long-term testing?

    I am going to let other people go first.

    I am not in contact with any “high risk” individuals on a regular basis, so there is no urgency to volunteer for the first wave.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  22. “Trump has Co.video” and “Twitter IS E-vil”

    Hyperreality?

  23. @The Alarmist

    Someone needs to complain to the FCC and ask why §230 applies to to FaceBag and Twatter in the first place.

    §230 doesn’t apply to Big Tech, it applies to you when you try to sue them for their malfeasance. Then your suit gets thrown out and Zuck and Jack trade high fives on Twitter.

  24. iffen says:

    Is it beneficial for “us” if social media is declared a common carrier? If social media is declared a common carrier, why can’t we do the same for cable and media networks? Not to mention the Jew York Times, Washington Post, WSJ, etc.

    • Replies: @anon
  25. dfordoom says: • Website
    @A123

    Would you personally volunteer to take a vaccine that has had no long-term testing?

    I am going to let other people go first.

    And I suspect that a very large number of people will come to the same conclusion, that they do not want to be guinea pigs. If most people in low-risk or moderate risk categories make the same choice then the coronavirus is not going to go away. It will be like the flu, something that we are stuck with indefinitely.

    My other concern is that six months down the track we’ll see lots of people either getting side-effects from the vaccine, or claiming to be getting side-effects from the vaccine, or convincing themselves that they’re getting side-effects from the vaccine. Those people will respond by getting lawyered-up and they’ll start suing. Then people will start to panic that the vaccine is more dangerous than the virus, and they’ll refuse to take the vaccine. And if that happens then the coronavirus is not going to go away.

    An inadequately tested vaccine could turn out to be a time-bomb just waiting to explode. Especially if it’s an inadequately tested vaccine rushed into production for political reasons. Or rushed into production to keep the financial markets happy.

  26. Anonymous[401] • Disclaimer says:

    Twitter’s twitchy-twatty mangina Dorsey is like YouTube’s SS Reichsfuhrerkarencensor Susan Wojcicki (Jewish sister of the wife of Google’s co-founder, Sergei Brin).

    Like Susie, Jacky needs to stop dropping deuces on the First Amendment:

    https://tinyurl.com/y3922hfw

  27. Anonymous[401] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    If Don loses…which, sadly, he well might…it will because he failed to declaw SMGs (Social Media Giants) early on.

    Instead of fellating Bibi and doing Israel’s bidding out of the gate (bombing Syria, assassinating an Iranian general he’d lied to, moving our embassy to Jerusalem, giving a so-called modern nation $38,000,000,000 MORE for free to build apartheid walls, greenlighting more theft of more Palestinian land, saying Syria’s Golan Heights are now Jewish, etc.) to please Jarvanka, he should have supported the online cyber-army that got him elected 4 years ago.

    Instead, Trump let the Proud Boys be arrested while the Left bailed out antifa thugs. He also failed to build the WALL…letting illegals not just mooch off citizens, but move to states he barely won last time.

    Don kissed the arses of blacks and women…few of which will vote for him. He did nothing for white males: his core corps.

    HINT: tweets and rallies don’t win elections!

  28. anon[582] • Disclaimer says:
    @iffen

    Is it beneficial for “us” if social media is declared a common carrier?

    It is beneficial for open debate. Pre-web USENET newsgroups were wide open, with the exception of moderated groups. Some by-invitation-only groups were more like mail-lists in terms of traffic.

    For example, the soc. and talk.politics groups were generally as open to disagreement as any Unz comment thread, with the alt. hierarchy “anything goes”. Spammers did a lot of damage by misusing the openness, to be sure. But while it lasted, reason sometimes prevailed in some places, and even when people got their fee-fees hurt they at least were informed “other opinions existed”.

    The current one-sided curation / censorship has created bubble worlds where people simply never encounter an opinion they disagree with, and this creates a lot of drama queens IMO, just as college campuses tend to do. But at the same time, curation has created a lot of social tension and resentment among those disfavored. This isn’t a good situation. In fact, part of the last 4 years of foaming rants from the libtards is due to the social media bubble worlds they soak in.

    If social media is declared a common carrier, why can’t we do the same for cable and media networks?

    Cable is regulated differently, more like broadcast TV. The TV regs go back to a 1938 regulation, which is why stuff like Game of Thrones is on cable but not over-the-air TV.

    Not to mention the Jew York Times, Washington Post, WSJ, etc.

    Print media has a couple of centuries of protection, including the “actual malice” clause of the Supreme Court decision Sullivan vs. NY Times. Does that protection extend to online versions of the papers or not? Nobody has really asked that question as far as I know.

    • Replies: @iffen
  29. iffen says:
    @anon

    I shudder to think where civilization would be today had we not had the Usenet.

    Seriously, free and open debate is a good thing, at least that’s what I keep telling myself.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  30. @dfordoom

    What if the vaccine is largely placebo itself? Agree a lot of people won’t take it. I won’t. But most of the people who won’t take it will be people who think the response/danger of Covid has been overblown. The people who are most worried about it will probably be the ones most likely to take it.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  31. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    Seriously, free and open debate is a good thing, at least that’s what I keep telling myself.

    Generally speaking people are in favour of free speech when they don’t have power but think they have a chance of gaining power. That’s why the Left used to be passionately in favour of free speech.

    There was a time when social conservatives had real power. In those days they were very much opposed to free speech. Now they have no power so suddenly they’ve discovered a burning belief in the virtues of free speech.

    The Economic Right had strictly limited power back in the 70s and at that time they were in favour of free and open debate on economic issues. Once they gained absolute power they shut down debate on economic issues.

    The best way to undermine existing power structures is by utilising free speech as a weapon. Once a group has gained control of the levers of power the rational thing for them to do is to forbid free speech since it could be a dangerous weapon in the hands of their enemies.

    Whenever a group advocates passionately for free speech you know they’re a group with no actual power. You also know that if they ever gain power they will instantly decide that free speech is dangerous and wicked.

  32. @dfordoom

    A constitutional republic is supposed to enshrine the protection of free speech in the founding document itself. But who wants to let a piece of paper restrain him?

  33. Freiriger says:
    @Chrisnonymous

    If you think eradication was a viable strategy, you have to ask yourself why we haven’t eradicated influenza or the common cold.

    There’s an easy and obvious answer which is that eradicating an endemic virus is harder than eradicating a novel virus if you catch it early enough. That’s the perhaps the main purpose of Epidemiological Surveillance.

    If the entire world had responded with immediate, hard quarantines on China back in January, based on the (correct) logic that the short term severe economic costs that successfully eradicated the virus would pay massive dividends, eradication might have been possible. Possible doesn’t mean likely, China still might have succeeded in deliberately infecting other countries despite countermeasures. But we didn’t even try so we will never know. (Trump’s travel ban was not a sufficient measure)

    There are also important secondary answers which is that too few people consider the common cold and influenza to be a serious threat. No one is willing to engage in collective, expensive behavior to combat colds and flu. They are just accepted as part of the day to day risk of living. Covid is more lethal than colds and flu, particularly to people willing to allocate capital toward combating it. The problem was that those people failed to take the threat seriously until it was too late.

    Personally, I think that eradicating cold and influenza might be a surprisingly worthwhile endeavor. Does anyone really know the hit on productivity caused by flu and common cold among healthy adults? Most adults pretend the common cold doesn’t affect them at all but, objectively, it does. I’m willing to bet many “asymptomatic” covid cases are people who are accustomed to pretending as if their cold symptoms aren’t real and are faking normal performance. Ultimately, though, there are far more immediate and obvious threats to public health than cold and influenza, so progress combating them will have to continue at pace (unless we get lucky and George Church solves it with genetic hacking).

  34. Freiriger says:
    @dfordoom

    Whenever a group advocates passionately for free speech you know they’re a group with no actual power. You also know that if they ever gain power they will instantly decide that free speech is dangerous and wicked.

    The whole point of the evolved western philosophy of liberal government as that there’s hard, competitive value in knowing the TRUTH. Free Speech promotes Truth. Endless realpolitik and postmodern power strategies sacrifice knowledge and wisdom to win short-term power games that all-too-often end in disaster for everyone. This comment is far too fatalistic. You can recognize disingenuous support for freedom without asserting that it always has to be that way because it can’t be any other way. There are always people playing pure power games. This doesn’t mean everyone always is and that you even if you have to temporarily sacrifice ideals to defeat an existential threat, you cannot uphold the virtue once attaining power.

    Perhaps your confusion is that free speech is a fundamental liberal value, while it is an incidental conservative one. Conservatives value free speech as one part of the overall package of western morality, while (true) liberals base most of their philosophy around it. Conservatives source truth from tradition and religion as well as science, while liberals are focused on reason. Christians will talk about biblical truth. Progressives, meanwhile, employ the infinitely malleable “my truth.”

    Woke Capital’s decision to ally with progressives rather than liberals is convenient for them, but corrosive to institutions they depend on for their long-term success.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  35. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Freiriger

    Conservatives source truth from tradition and religion as well as science

    Tradition and religion may well be valuable but they are not truth. They are merely opinion. They might be very useful, but they’re still opinion. Any belief based on faith is opinion, not truth.

    Most of the things that most people believe in are opinions rather than truth. In the realm of politics there is no truth at all, merely competing opinions.

    Even in science, once you venture outside the realm of hard science, you’re not dealing with truth. You’re dealing with hypotheses and theories that may be backed by fairly convincing evidence but the most you can say about them is that some are quite likely to correspond reasonably well with truth. And when you’re dealing with “sciences” such as climate science you’re dealing with what are at best educated guesses. If you’re dealing with things like anthropology you’re dealing with mere opinions.

    But in politics there can be no objective truth at all. There is nothing but opinion.

    As for morality, it is merely values that have proven to be useful, or in some cases have been proven to be useless and have been abandoned. It has nothing to do with truth.

    Free speech has nothing to do with truth. It merely means the right to express an opinion, an opinion which may or may not be true.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS