(11-12-2024, 10:36 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote:

(11-12-2024, 01:22 AM)TDOSS Wrote: Critics feared, may have stifled, may have suppressed, raising concerns…yes perhaps.

Was it all necessary? No. Was it only positive? No. Was it more positive than negative? Certainly, especially when it came to Covid 19.

You write “While I will concede some content was indeed false, discussions about vaccine safety and the virus’s origins were censored. Well thank God discussions on vaccine safety were censored! Keeping the anti-vaxer nut jobs at bay saved untold thousands of lives!

There are well established limits on free speech. For example, you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. The anti-vaxers who convinced people not to get vaccinated killed far, far more people than yelling fire in a crowded theatre ever could.

In Canada:

Unvaccinated 11 to 17 times more likely to die

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/seve...-canadians

Do you want to turn this into a Covid thread? 

You said they didn't censor. I just gave you a few quick examples, so that we can at least put to bed the idea that Trump is chasing "ghosts," as it was mentioned previously. There have been several attempts made by the government recently to censor American's free speech, using companies as proxies. There are literal departments being made to act as liaisons between the government and media companies. We have testimony from Big Tech execs verifying the government's role in pushing for speech control. To argue the government is not attempting to stifle free speech is just unfounded.

If you want to focus on the crowded theater aspect or the degree to which speech should be regulated, fine, but we are now discussing when and where to curtail speech. This moves into an ideological arena, not a factual one. In this area, you and I will have different OPINIONS. There is no "fact" when we enter into that discussion, merely different priors and applied logic. 

Do we agree this is where we are in the conversation?