So Facebook and Youtube are now censoring and deleting videos by well respected scientist like Carl Heneghan and Tim Yeadon, Heneghan recently met Boris Johnson and was the first to call out the 4,000 deaths per day lie said by the brothers Grimm and is certainly no crank but yet his videos are still being censored and deleted and some on here say theres no media bias in the reporting of the covid 19 hysteria !
Trying to silence or belittle views on a subject only leads to polarisation, as if they are not challenged or discussed openly, incorrect views can be embellished and allowed to ferment in their own bubble. Challenge and skepticism are key components of the scientific process and have resulted in a lot of progress in many fields. They are not things to be feared.
They’re not actually deleting them, they’re hiding them and putting up a warning that the information on the link is disputed by experts, you still have the option of clicking on it to see the article/video. Twitter does it with every other tweet that Trump puts up, as they’re complete bollocks, but plenty still click on them and tell him how brilliant he is.
The chair's of each have been interviewed under oath recently, and say that they do delete posts depending on the content, and couldn't answer when presented with what looked to be clear bias in the application of the rules. The best they could come up with, was that people hadn't been banned, but suspended until they delete the 'offending' posts. They were also presented with examples showing that the marking of posts with warnings was also done with what appears to be a clear political bias.
You understand what the inverted commas were for, yeah? I was referring to the people who denounce common scientific ground on the basis of their lack of understanding. Either you have the nous to educate yourself on something you don’t understand or you don’t. If you don’t, then simply calling that science a lie isn’t a viable alternative to the truth. But it’s that exact method that’s led to the propagation of the bullshit we see on social media.
So you think identifying the source of alternative facts and other bullshit is a straw man argument when discussing the propagation of alternative facts that mostly use straw man arguments? Must...just...make a little...note of that.
Do I? You leap to a lot of conclusions that can't be drawn from the comment you're responding to, so they must be revealing something about your own mindset. If an argument is weak, it should be very easy to demonstrate where it is weak, but rather than do that, we see a lot of people disappearing on tangents invented in their own mind, rather than a clear discussion of the issue at hand.
Isn't that what some did over the Daily Mail article, there are statistics, graphs, tables and other stuff in the piece, but because it doesn't support what you already believe it's simply dismissed as bullshit.
Prof Sikora had said: ‘When the history books are written, the fear will have done much more damage than the virus, including large numbers of cancer and cardiological patients not being treated and dying unnecessarily.’ This is no doubt controversial. But Prof Sikora is more entitled to say it than most. UnHerd received a message (beginning cheerily ‘Hi UnHerd’) from a nameless spokesman for something called ‘YouTube Team’. In some electronic kangaroo court, they had decided the Sikora interview had ‘violated their guidelines’. They did not say why or how. They explained in their message that they did not allow content which promotes ‘violent or dangerous acts’. Prof Sikora didn’t do that. They also warned against material that was ‘shocking, disrespectful or sensational’. Which it also wasn’t. I have looked at those guidelines and can see nothing which justifies this action. But YouTube almost immediately threw out UnHerd’s appeal against this blatant censoring. UnHerd has some powerful friends and made a big fuss. YouTube eventually gave way, admitted it had made a mistake, and put the interview back. It was all a bit embarrassing.
One point about MSM lieing, last week the Guardian reported there was some arrests at anti lockdown protests in Bristol and Liverpool saying there was 200 present at both of these protests, Youtube footage clearly shows approximately 3,000 plus at both protests so why the lies from the Guardian, what purpose does it serve ?
I posted a link earlier to an interview with Dr Fauci, which I thought offered some interesting issues, but it didn't seem to generate a response. He's talking about the basis of the tests that underpin much of the actions that have taken place, and is in effect saying that they are no value. It relates to the number of cycles each sample undergoes before a conclusion is made. He says anything over 30 is of no value, yet as I understand it, the test protocol is for 40 plus. So, is the test cycle for less than that? Is Fauci no longer a credible source? Has the clip been doctored? Is the clip now outdated? https://www.not606.com/threads/tier-2-now-tier-4-from-00-01hrs-thursday.387577/page-41#post-14330438
Yes and that's not on. Just because something is in the Daily Mail doesn't make it bullshit. It's a paper with an incredibly obvious bias, but that doesn't mean it just prints bullshit all the time. How the data is interpreted and then spun is a different matter entirely, but the data at source isn't to be written off because that's just as dangerous as telling people misinformation. Science isn't political, it's either right or it's wrong, it's when people interpret it incorrectly and then start spouting **** that the problems begin. And that's another thing, actually. There's nothing wrong with being wrong; it seems to have become a monkey on the back of society that being wrong automatically makes you a write off, or that you should somehow feel less worth because you made a mistake. Being wrong gives you an opportunity to learn and progress. Being wrong also isn't the same as lying, but somehow in these weird times consequences of both seem to have crossed over.
