Covid 19 thread

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Status
Not open for further replies.

TSFH Fan

Epic Music Guy
Joined
Dec 5, 2014
Messages
1,327
That PragerU stuff got me curious. Found some stats from YouTube reprinted in this article along with an embedded Declaration from the Federal Case:


Also this recap

And this:
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
It must be me -

Am I not engaging in good faith here? I know we are skirting political lines - but it’s frankly just not possible not to skirt the line in this thread.

I want to listen - I want to learn. Really. I’m interested in what y’all have to say.

I’m just asking questions to try to frame the topic. I’m not trying to trick anyone - I’m not trying to put words in anyone’s mouth - I’m just trying to discuss the issue.
Nah, it's nothing like that. You're not doing anything wrong, and I'm not upset by anything you said. I literally can't go any deeper into this because it gets very political. I was just being facetious and it came across as frustration. I'm also just trying to adhere to the board rules here, and to get the topic back on track. I'm mostly responsible for taking it in a different direction, so I'm just gonna stop doing that (hopefully).
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
That PragerU stuff got me curious. Found some stats from YouTube reprinted in this article along with an embedded Declaration from the Federal Case:


Also this recap

And this:
Yeah, I read all of that. It doesn't square with testimony provided by Google/Youtube itself during a Senate subcommittee hearing on the topic. There's an almost 3 hour video of that hearing one could watch if they wanted to, but it's kind of clear that nobody in that comment section actually did. They're just responding to the blog author's take of the initial claims that prompted the hearing. At any rate, I know the alternative is to just stop using their platforms if one doesn't like the rules. And that's fine. But that kind of logic is tantamount to saying, "Hey, if you don't like steak they served you, you can always go outside and eat dog shit."

Anyway, I'm not going any deeper into this. It's not productive.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
Yeah, that's my bad. I forgot we have you shepherd's pie eating dudes here too (which I love, if made correctly). A more apt phrasing would have been to use the words, "western civilization" instead. And it's not necessarily pressuring them to uphold a specific version, in as much as an expectation to adhere to their own rules & standards in a linear fashion.

Anyway, we're getting some new mandatory rules here in SC that are Richard Pryor funny as it relates to masks and where to wear them. You get a nice fine if you don't comply. I just wear it all the time now instead of exploiting the loopholes. I'm kind of beaten down over it, and I suspect that was the plan all long. Nothing makes sense anymore. So now I just wear masks with my preferred messaging on them. It's all I got left.
 

ozarkram

Hall of Shame
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
1,426
I went into one of those stop and goes the other day to pay for some gas. The guy behind to counter made fun of my mask. So I robbed him. I find its the little things that get me thru the day anymore.
How do you use the blue font again?
 

Loyal

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
29,457
I went into one of those stop and goes the other day to pay for some gas. The guy behind to counter made fun of my mask. So I robbed him. I find its the little things that get me thru the day anymore.
How do you use the blue font again?
Holy shyte, man, that was funny! lol
 

Loyal

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
29,457
Yeah, that's my bad. I forgot we have you shepherd's pie eating dudes here too (which I love, if made correctly). A more apt phrasing would have been to use the words, "western civilization" instead. And it's not necessarily pressuring them to uphold a specific version, in as much as an expectation to adhere to their own rules & standards in a linear fashion.

Anyway, we're getting some new mandatory rules here in SC that are Richard Pryor funny as it relates to masks and where to wear them. You get a nice fine if you don't comply. I just wear it all the time now instead of exploiting the loopholes. I'm kind of beaten down over it, and I suspect that was the plan all long. Nothing makes sense anymore. So now I just wear masks with my preferred messaging on them. It's all I got left.
Yep. If they ever do come up with a vaccine, they will force people to take it. We are becoming part of the hive.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
Yep. If they ever do come up with a vaccine, they will force people to take it. We are becoming part of the hive.
Yeah, I've considered that too. The 14th amendment doesn't even offer you protection from such an action due to the Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v Massachusetts. I'm constantly wondering what the tipping point will be before the trigger is pulled on that (e.g., what the definition of "National Health Crisis" will be that sets it all in motion). Hopefully it doesn't come to that, and I don't think it will, but man you just never know anymore.
 

OC--LeftCoast

Agent Provocateur
Joined
Nov 24, 2012
Messages
3,695
Name
Greg
Yeah, I've considered that too. The 14th amendment doesn't even offer you protection from such an action due to the Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v Massachusetts. I'm constantly wondering what the tipping point will be before the trigger is pulled on that (e.g., what the definition of "National Health Crisis" will be that sets it all in motion). Hopefully it doesn't come to that, and I don't think it will, but man you just never know anymore.
Doing this off a mobile device wish I knew how to link this

the Movie, The Outlaw Josie Wales

Captain Redlegs...”doing right ain’t got no end”

just perfect, lol
 

thirteen28

I like pizza.
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
8,324
Name
Erik
But - it’s their platform. We aren’t talking about the government taking down content, are we?

Isn’t the free market response simply to not use google if you don’t like the way they do business?

And why would they gain control of all web hosting? Is that a thing? Is this dovetailing with net neutrality somehow?

You're missing a couple of things here.

First of all, Facebook and Twitter have a disproportionately huge control over the flow of information. It's probably not hyperbole to say that the majority of news in our country is disseminated through those platforms. So while what they are doing may not meet the constitutional definition of censorship, it certainly meets the practical definition.

Secondly (and I'm surprised this hasn't been brought into the conversation yet), there is Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act which shields these platforms from liability from certain lawsuits as long as they are an open platform. Basically, that section gives them the choice to declare themselves as a publisher or a platform. If it's the former, they are liable for the views they allowed published but have a lot more control over the content ... e.g., like the NY Times. If you are a platform however, you can't be held liable, but you have a greater responsibility to allow all viewpoints and content, with a few exceptions. Doctors discussing the effectiveness of HCQ on patients to whom they've prescribed it comes nowhere close to any of those exceptions. Meanwhile, Twitter allows the ayatollahs of Iran to call for genocide against Israel - in what universe is that ok but talking about potential benefits of HCQ not? (sorry mods if that veers to close to politics - you can strike that sentence if it steps over the line).

Either way, alleged "platforms" like Twitter and Facebook are trying to have it both ways, the benefits of liability shields that come with being a platform, the content control that comes with being a publisher. If they are going to behave as a publisher, they should have their liability shield revoked.

As for Google, they are a monopoly, they don't just control the majority of search, they control the majority of online advertising (which gives them control of the former). You can talk about free market alternatives all you want, but when you have a monopoly, you don't have a free market. And by controlling search, they have an incredible amount of control over what information flows through the internet. They need to be broken up or highly regulated.

Back to the HCQ, it is ridiculous that people will rush to censor a simple video of some doctors discussing the drug and the effects in treating patients, i.e. first hand observations, and then somehow label that information as dangerous. It's not as if you can just go buy the drug over the counter, and it's not as if there is a black market for people to get high of the drug as if it's the next oxycontin or something. It's an old, relatively safe, and cheap drug that has been widely prescribed for decades.

A critical thinker will ask why there is so much effort to censor the information flow about HCQ and punish the purveyors of the same, because at this point it's obvious that the reasons are not medical in nature.
 

Neil039

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Apr 3, 2020
Messages
3,908
Censorship, big tech and reliance on the government are becoming scary realities.

Civil liberties at the cost of ones health should be very eye opening for everyone. Is the solution for Covid-19 truly ever going to be found without the masses paying for it? When it becomes less profitable will the powers that be move on to their next profitable news cycle. My guess is yes.

I disagree with anyone eluding or saying the majority of US citizens are not taking this seriously. There has been a disinformation factory working hard to confuse and distort any semblance of facts. The mask question(to mask or not to mask), incubation time(surfaces and contact) and the good old ”essential“ workers question.

Fauci is the lee Harvey in this whole mess IMO. Why would anyone who is making a living off this chaos want a solution?

Sorry for the short rant. I believe the hysteria of all this is bound to the 2020 election for both parties. That my friends means we are the losers in all this.
 

Dieter the Brock

Fourth responder
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
8,196
Censorship, big tech and reliance on the government are becoming scary realities.

Civil liberties at the cost of ones health should be very eye opening for everyone. Is the solution for Covid-19 truly ever going to be found without the masses paying for it? When it becomes less profitable will the powers that be move on to their next profitable news cycle. My guess is yes.

I disagree with anyone eluding or saying the majority of US citizens are not taking this seriously. There has been a disinformation factory working hard to confuse and distort any semblance of facts. The mask question(to mask or not to mask), incubation time(surfaces and contact) and the good old ”essential“ workers question.

Fauci is the lee Harvey in this whole mess IMO. Why would anyone who is making a living off this chaos want a solution?

Sorry for the short rant. I believe the hysteria of all this is bound to the 2020 election for both parties. That my friends means we are the losers in all this.

Fauci..... Lee Harvey

Holy fuck

618718C8-CAA0-4DF7-8E44-6B4664832D58.gif
 

snackdaddy

Who's your snackdaddy?
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
10,719
Name
Charlie
This whole pandemic is stressing everyone out. The only thing that is stressing me more is my lousy golf game.
 

12intheBox

Legend
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Messages
9,909
Name
Wil Fay
You're missing a couple of things here.

First of all, Facebook and Twitter have a disproportionately huge control over the flow of information. It's probably not hyperbole to say that the majority of news in our country is disseminated through those platforms. So while what they are doing may not meet the constitutional definition of censorship, it certainly meets the practical definition.

Secondly (and I'm surprised this hasn't been brought into the conversation yet), there is Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act which shields these platforms from liability from certain lawsuits as long as they are an open platform. Basically, that section gives them the choice to declare themselves as a publisher or a platform. If it's the former, they are liable for the views they allowed published but have a lot more control over the content ... e.g., like the NY Times. If you are a platform however, you can't be held liable, but you have a greater responsibility to allow all viewpoints and content, with a few exceptions. Doctors discussing the effectiveness of HCQ on patients to whom they've prescribed it comes nowhere close to any of those exceptions. Meanwhile, Twitter allows the ayatollahs of Iran to call for genocide against Israel - in what universe is that ok but talking about potential benefits of HCQ not? (sorry mods if that veers to close to politics - you can strike that sentence if it steps over the line).

Either way, alleged "platforms" like Twitter and Facebook are trying to have it both ways, the benefits of liability shields that come with being a platform, the content control that comes with being a publisher. If they are going to behave as a publisher, they should have their liability shield revoked.

As for Google, they are a monopoly, they don't just control the majority of search, they control the majority of online advertising (which gives them control of the former). You can talk about free market alternatives all you want, but when you have a monopoly, you don't have a free market. And by controlling search, they have an incredible amount of control over what information flows through the internet. They need to be broken up or highly regulated.

Back to the HCQ, it is ridiculous that people will rush to censor a simple video of some doctors discussing the drug and the effects in treating patients, i.e. first hand observations, and then somehow label that information as dangerous. It's not as if you can just go buy the drug over the counter, and it's not as if there is a black market for people to get high of the drug as if it's the next oxycontin or something. It's an old, relatively safe, and cheap drug that has been widely prescribed for decades.

A critical thinker will ask why there is so much effort to censor the information flow about HCQ and punish the purveyors of the same, because at this point it's obvious that the reasons are not medical in nature.

I don’t believe it is so obvious - and I fancy myself a critical thinker. On the other hand, I recognize my limitations - I am not a doctor or an epidemiologist. I’m not ready to say that taking down the viewpoint was right or wrong, I just think it’s firmly their decision.

And it’s interesting to bring up the CDA - after all, in a social media context, who is the publisher? The author of the content? The website where it’s disseminated? Both? And where is the “as long as they are an open platform” language coming from? That isn’t in the CDA anywhere. Any of these big tech companies can be as liberal or as conservative as they want to be and still enjoy their first amendment rights and be shielded from liability under the CDA. There was never a requirement that they be politically neutral.

Again - I think it’s important to take a step back and break the question to its core - Facebook, Twitter, Google - should these companies be allowed to control their own content? Should they be allowed to create their own terms of service and to enforce them as they see fit?

If not - who then? Is it simply that there can be no terms of service. Nothing can be removed by these companies - and anything anyone wants to post is fair game? Should the government dictate for these companies how to monitor their content?

Moving on - is google a monopoly? They are undoubtedly a huge market presence - the monsters of the internet to be sure. But they aren’t defined as a monopoly in the legal sense. There are alternatives. They have no exclusive control over any of the field in which they operate. Monopolies are strictly regulated and for good reason. Google, Facebook, Twitter - as big and influential as they are - they aren’t monopolies.

Back full circle, none of this means that their decision to censor HCQ opinions was the right call. But it was - as I see it - their call to make.
 

12intheBox

Legend
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Messages
9,909
Name
Wil Fay
I disagree with anyone eluding or saying the majority of US citizens are not taking this seriously. There has been a disinformation factory working hard to confuse and distort any semblance of facts. The mask question(to mask or not to mask), incubation time(surfaces and contact) and the good old ”essential“ workers question.

It seems we are getting a lot better in the U.S. - but I still see people refusing to wear masks every day. Granted , where I work, we tend to get the fringes of society walking thru the doors on a steady basis, so that may not be a good representation of the U.S. as a whole. It seems to be improving though.
 

Neil039

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Apr 3, 2020
Messages
3,908
This whole pandemic is stressing everyone out. The only thing that is stressing me more is my lousy golf game.
Got out this week and played 9. 2 par, 3 birdies, and 4 holes that destroyed my self confidence lol
 

thirteen28

I like pizza.
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
8,324
Name
Erik
Yep. If they ever do come up with a vaccine, they will force people to take it. We are becoming part of the hive.

That should be greeted with massive pushback if it comes to that. I'm not an anti-vaxxer by any stretch of the imagination (too late for that for anyone who's ever been in the military). But I am dead set against forcing anyone to get a vaccine, especially one that will be as new as this.

I'm sure flu season would be less severe if everyone got a flu shot, and I get one every year. But there is no way in hell I'd ever tell anyone else they should have to do the same.



Both? And where is the “as long as they are an open platform” language coming from? That isn’t in the CDA anywhere. Any of these big tech companies can be as liberal or as conservative as they want to be and still enjoy their first amendment rights and be shielded from liability under the CDA. There was never a requirement that they be politically neutral.

It's a practical consequence of the difference between platform and publisher. The latter is responsible for their content and thus have control. The former is largely not responsible, with a few exceptions for things that clearly promote illegal activity (drug, human trafficking) or altering content of a user. But as long as they are acting in good faith (which they are most certainly not doing here), then they are not liable for user content. It's not stated explicitly in the law, but that's the way it is interpreted, and it's exactly the reason platforms like Twitter and Facebook proclaim themselves as platforms and not publishers. Thankfully, all of their censorship as of late has gotten the attention of the right people and there is movement to start holding them responsible. The social media companies have done a great job of pissing people off on both sides of the aisle.

Keep in mind these platforms also use a significant amount of infrastructure for which they did not directly pay for and for which much of was a result of government funding, particularly in the early days. That should confer upon them extra responsibility for openness if they are going to declare themselves as a platform.

Again - I think it’s important to take a step back and break the question to its core - Facebook, Twitter, Google - should these companies be allowed to control their own content? Should they be allowed to create their own terms of service and to enforce them as they see fit?

If they want to control their own content, they absolutely can - they just need to declare themselves as publishers and not platforms. The New York Times controls all of its own content and they make no pretense about being a platform that welcomes all views. Facebook, Twitter, and Google on the other hand pretend like they are open and that they welcome all views, but it's pretty clear that they don't.

Moving on - is google a monopoly? They are undoubtedly a huge market presence - the monsters of the internet to be sure. But they aren’t defined as a monopoly in the legal sense. There are alternatives. They have no exclusive control over any of the field in which they operate. Monopolies are strictly regulated and for good reason. Google, Facebook, Twitter - as big and influential as they are - they aren’t monopolies.

When you control 90% of any market (which Google does in both search and online advertising), you are a monopoly. "Exclusive" control is not required to be classified as a monopoly. Standard Oil was a monopoly at one time, even though they did not have exclusive control over the oil market. But they had enough share that there was effectively no free market in their particular sector, and the same is true in the search and online advertising markets now.

When Google can start dictating decisions to other companies about how they run their own business and threaten their bottom line by pulling ads and thus ad revenue, they are very much exhibiting monopolistic behavior that flies in the face of anything resembling a free market. For example,t hey recently forced a website, The Federalist, to remove its comments section at the threat of losing their advertising dollars. There is no other non-Google platform through which those advertising dollars could be replaced, so they had to relent. That's exactly the kind of anti-competitive behavior that anti-trust law is there to prevent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.