Covid 19 thread

[thirteen28]

Alcohol consumption up
Gun sales up
Massive unemployment

Yeah, that’s gonna happen unfortunately

Suicide rate is soaring according to the CDC.

The cure is becoming worse than the disease.

 

[OC--LeftCoast]

The cure is becoming worse than the disease.

Kinda has been for some time thru my eyes...and we all have our thoughts as to why

 

[thirteen28]

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.

In our current powder-keg state of society, it might only be the first of many trigger pulls.

Not trying to be a drama queen but ... " all that you fear they're telling you, can't happen here ..."


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PARgfglpXQw

 

[12intheBox]

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.

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.

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.

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.

To the extent that the courts are tasked with interpreting the law - requiring platforms to be politically neutral in order to remain classified as platforms is not, in fact, the way it has been interpreted at all. If you can show me a case where it has been interpreted that way, I would be incredibly interested to read it.

in fact, the attention of all of the right people you mentioned, has them wanting to change the law to force these companies to be politically neutral. Josh Hawley, in particular, has been trying - unsuccessfully- to make such a push for about a year now. The reason he wants to pass this law is because the law in its current form does not force these companies to be politically neutral.

Public Infrastructure - I assume you are talking about state and municipal tax breaks that come in exchange for building their centers in such and such city? That’s always been a pet peeve of mine - that we have set up a system where states and cities compete against one another and sell themselves to corporations. I’m not sure whether such tax breaks ever come with the expectation that the company behaves in a certain way other than to keep X amount of jobs in the area (and even those promises are usually illusory). Is there some other public infrastructure funding deal out there that I am unaware of?

Monopolies - A monopoly has a legal definition. Having said that - there is enough smoke around google and antitrust laws that I will yield this point with respect to them. They aren’t there yet, but they are skirting the line. Facebook and Twitter I don’t see the same way. In fact, isn’t Parlor a good example of a free market response to being angry with twitter over the issue. If it pisses off enough people, economics will address the issue better than legislation will.

 

[thirteen28]

To the extent that the courts are tasked with interpreting the law - requiring platforms to be politically neutral in order to remain classified as platforms is not, in fact, the way it has been interpreted at all. If you can show me a case where it has been interpreted that way, I would be incredibly interested to read it.

in fact, the attention of all of the right people you mentioned, has them wanting to change the law to force these companies to be politically neutral. Josh Hawley, in particular, has been trying - unsuccessfully- to make such a push for about a year now. The reason he wants to pass this law is because the law in its current form does not force these companies to be politically neutral.

It hasn't truly been tested in court yet, but this is the way a lot of attorneys do interpret that section of law. If I had a precedent to quote, I certainly would.

Hawley is trying to beef up section 230 among other things to force these companies to live by their proclaimed distinction between publisher and platform. Namely, the issue is with the latter, forcing them to act in good faith and without bias with recognition that these platforms, in the digital age, are more or less the town square. He wants these companies to be forced to live with *their own* terms of service, as many of their censorship decisions do not comport with their terms of service, and they lack transparency (not to mention consistency) in their enforcement.

Public Infrastructure - I assume you are talking about state and municipal tax breaks that come in exchange for building their centers in such and such city? That’s always been a pet peeve of mine - that we have set up a system where states and cities compete against one another and sell themselves to corporations. I’m not sure whether such tax breaks ever come with the expectation that the company behaves in a certain way other than to keep X amount of jobs in the area (and even those promises are usually illusory). Is there some other public infrastructure funding deal out there that I am unaware of?

I wasn't really thinking about tax breaks from municipalities, but I suppose that could be part of it. It certainly shows them benefiting from public largess. The internet, if you remember, grew out of ARPANet (or DARPANet as it was called at the time), which was a US Defense project and provided the backbone for what the internet has grown into.

The principle isn't much different than the requirements of over-the-air TV in the past. Recognizing that the available spectrum for transmission of TV signals was limited, the FCC placed certain requirements on networks and TV stations. For example, they couldn't refuse to air political ads from one candidate while airing those of an opposing candidate. But Twitter and Facebook have done just that. Given the amount of information space they consume in social media, they are effectively getting away with what TV stations/networks are not allowed to.

Facebook and Twitter I don’t see the same way. In fact, isn’t Parlor a good example of a free market response to being angry with twitter over the issue. If it pisses off enough people, economics will address the issue better than legislation will.

Parler at this point is tiny relative to Twitter. It is a free market response, but it's very unlikely they will be able to break through in the current climate, even if Twitter does piss off enough people (which they certainly have). I would love to be proven wrong on this, but I see no evidence that it's going to happen.

The better approach IMO is to force Twitter, Facebook, etc. to live within the confines of the law they are now flouting. If they want to behave like a publisher, fine - let them declare themselves publishers and they can censor whoever they want for whatever reason they want. But if they want the liability protections of a platform, they should behave as a platform and allow all views and all content aside from the narrow exceptions.

 

[thirteen28]

 

[12intheBox]

It hasn't truly been tested in court yet, but this is the way a lot of attorneys do interpret that section of law. If I had a precedent to quote, I certainly would.

Hawley is trying to beef up section 230 among other things to force these companies to live by their proclaimed distinction between publisher and platform. Namely, the issue is with the latter, forcing them to act in good faith and without bias with recognition that these platforms, in the digital age, are more or less the town square. He wants these companies to be forced to live with *their own* terms of service, as many of their censorship decisions do not comport with their terms of service, and they lack transparency (not to mention consistency) in their enforcement.



I wasn't really thinking about tax breaks from municipalities, but I suppose that could be part of it. It certainly shows them benefiting from public largess. The internet, if you remember, grew out of ARPANet (or DARPANet as it was called at the time), which was a US Defense project and provided the backbone for what the internet has grown into.

The principle isn't much different than the requirements of over-the-air TV in the past. Recognizing that the available spectrum for transmission of TV signals was limited, the FCC placed certain requirements on networks and TV stations. For example, they couldn't refuse to air political ads from one candidate while airing those of an opposing candidate. But Twitter and Facebook have done just that. Given the amount of information space they consume in social media, they are effectively getting away with what TV stations/networks are not allowed to.



Parler at this point is tiny relative to Twitter. It is a free market response, but it's very unlikely they will be able to break through in the current climate, even if Twitter does piss off enough people (which they certainly have). I would love to be proven wrong on this, but I see no evidence that it's going to happen.

The better approach IMO is to force Twitter, Facebook, etc. to live within the confines of the law they are now flouting. If they want to behave like a publisher, fine - let them declare themselves publishers and they can censor whoever they want for whatever reason they want. But if they want the liability protections of a platform, they should behave as a platform and allow all views and all content aside from the narrow exceptions.

Respectfully, those attorneys are trying to read something into the law that isn’t there - and never has been. I’m not saying that there isn’t a good case for changing the law - but as it exists today - these companies are as free to moderate their forums as we are to voice our own individual opinions.

I don’t know how I feel about the government jumping into the internet the way the FCC jumped into television - although I respect the analogy. In the end, I suppose I think that private companies should be allowed to be private. The constitution limits the government, not the people. I - as a consumer - will decide where I want to spend my time and my money. I want nothing to do with Facebook - its a nightmare if you ask me - and yet I still have managed to enjoy the internet. I do like Twitter - its more suited to my attention span.

And of course Parler is tiny - its brand new. FB and Twitter were tiny once too.

 

[12intheBox]

View attachment 37932

Do you know more about this? What is the FDA rationale if one has been offered?

 

[Dieter the Brock]

View attachment 37932

I see your 20 minute un-approved FDA c19 test .... and Raise you a 5 minute test with FDA approval

 

[thirteen28]

Do you know more about this? What is the FDA rationale if one has been offered?

No, I just saw it and posted it here. I'm looking for more.

 

[thirteen28]

Respectfully, those attorneys are trying to read something into the law that isn’t there - and never has been. I’m not saying that there isn’t a good case for changing the law - but as it exists today - these companies are as free to moderate their forums as we are to voice our own individual opinions.

Attorneys do that and spend a lot of time parsing words and reading meaning into them, because that's how the law works. It's nothing like science, which is subjective enough at it is (see HCQ debate above). I'll give you an example. Here is 35 USC section 101, which is directed to patent-eligible subject matter:

"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."

Seems pretty simple, right? Not much to interpret there, it's all just common sense.

And yet, since 2010, there have been *64* cases litigated before the Supreme Court over this very section of law, with three of them setting major precedents that changed the bounds of that law in very significant ways. In the prior 11 years, there were three more that had significant changes on the bounds of that section of law.

Now read this:

Section 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Index (BitLaw)

The Section 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Index identifies resources relating to Section 101 patent eligibility issues, including resources in the MPEP, from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Guidance and examples), and Bitlaw.

bitlaw.com

On second thought, just skim that ... (Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted).

Just because the law doesn't say something in explicit, well-spelled out terms doesn't mean it doesn't say something. And in fact, what it says is the subject of constant debate and constant re-interpretation. Thus, to simply say the lawyers are reading something into the law that is not there at best, cannot be supported. And even if there is someday a Supreme Court precedent that agrees with you, it only takes on other ruling on some later date to throw that out of the window.

For now, there are a lot of lawyers that do argue the implications of the platform/publisher distinction, and that very much factors into why social media companies portray themselves as the former rather than the latter.

I don’t know how I feel about the government jumping into the internet the way the FCC jumped into television - although I respect the analogy. In the end, I suppose I think that private companies should be allowed to be private. The constitution limits the government, not the people. I - as a consumer - will decide where I want to spend my time and my money. I want nothing to do with Facebook - its a nightmare if you ask me - and yet I still have managed to enjoy the internet. I do like Twitter - its more suited to my attention span.

I agree that the constitution limits the government, not the people, that's the whole point. But it also expressly, through the commerce clause, gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. While I believe that one has been interpreted far too broadly, nevertheless it would be ludicrous to argue that Twitter, Facebook, et al., are not engaged in interstate commerce. And if they are going to declare themselves platforms with immunity from lawsuits that publishers are subject to, they should be restricted on what content they can remove and should be required to be far more transparent with their terms of service.

 

[Faceplant]

Man, some of yall like LIVE in this thread..... so many words....

 

[12intheBox]

Attorneys do that and spend a lot of time parsing words and reading meaning into them, because that's how the law works. It's nothing like science, which is subjective enough at it is (see HCQ debate above). I'll give you an example. Here is 35 USC section 101, which is directed to patent-eligible subject matter:

"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."

Seems pretty simple, right? Not much to interpret there, it's all just common sense.

And yet, since 2010, there have been *64* cases litigated before the Supreme Court over this very section of law, with three of them setting major precedents that changed the bounds of that law in very significant ways. In the prior 11 years, there were three more that had significant changes on the bounds of that section of law.

Now read this:

Section 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Index (BitLaw)

The Section 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Index identifies resources relating to Section 101 patent eligibility issues, including resources in the MPEP, from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Guidance and examples), and Bitlaw.

bitlaw.com

On second thought, just skim that ... (Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted).

Just because the law doesn't say something in explicit, well-spelled out terms doesn't mean it doesn't say something. And in fact, what it says is the subject of constant debate and constant re-interpretation. Thus, to simply say the lawyers are reading something into the law that is not there at best, cannot be supported. And even if there is someday a Supreme Court precedent that agrees with you, it only takes on other ruling on some later date to throw that out of the window.

For now, there are a lot of lawyers that do argue the implications of the platform/publisher distinction, and that very much factors into why social media companies portray themselves as the former rather than the latter.



I agree that the constitution limits the government, not the people, that's the whole point. But it also expressly, through the commerce clause, gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. While I believe that one has been interpreted far too broadly, nevertheless it would be ludicrous to argue that Twitter, Facebook, et al., are not engaged in interstate commerce. And if they are going to declare themselves platforms with immunity from lawsuits that publishers are subject to, they should be restricted on what content they can remove and should be required to be far more transparent with their terms of service.

I’m familiar. I’ve been practicing law for over 15 years. And no doubt Congress could regulate the internet as you propose under the commerce clause - the point is they haven’t. Maybe the will - they just haven’t yet.

And to simplify - I get the definitional distinction between publisher and platform - the part I’m saying doesn’t exist in the current law is the concept that in order to enjoy Immunity from liability for the content of posts on their site, that they have to agree to be politically neutral. It’s not in the law - it’s not in the legislative intent - it’s not in the penumbra of the law - there is no authority for the proposition.

You lost me on the 8th amendment thing. If your point is that courts go to mind bending lengths to apply interpretations to laws that stretch words well beyond their simple meanings - yes, I wholeheartedly agree. It gets pretty in the weeds, especially when the law in question is the constitution - but we could use that argument to suggest that basically any law mean anything we want it to mean. A lawyers opinion on the topic doesn’t mean much (especially mine) - a court opinion is where it actually matters.

And honestly, if a lawsuit could survive a motion to dismiss, don’t you suspect it would have by now? It’s not like this is a new phenomenon.

Man, some of yall like LIVE in this thread..... so many words....

I know - I’m among the worst of us. But it’s interesting conversation once you get into it - and I like talking with these guys.

 

[Angry Ram]

Man, some of yall like LIVE in this thread..... so many words....

I propose re-naming this thread to "Typing Wars: The First Rona Wave"

 

[XXXIVwin]

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

BRILLIANT!!

True outside-the-box thinking!
I mean, Fauci’s been pretty much unemployed during non-pandemic times....right?!?!

It all makes sense now! Can’t listen to anything Fauci says because he wants thousands more ppl to die so he can keep on raking in the dough!

What a despicable accusation.

 

[XXXIVwin]

Dude

Fauci has been a flip flopping clown from the get go, I almost pity the poor guy, is this even debatable?

Doctors make mistakes too.

Do we accuse them of purposefully keeping their patients sick in order to make money?

Comparing Fauci to Lee Harvey Oswald is completely crossing the line.

 

[Neil039]

BRILLIANT!!

True outside-the-box thinking!
I mean, Fauci’s been pretty much unemployed during non-pandemic times....right?!?!

It all makes sense now! Can’t listen to anything Fauci says because he wants thousands more ppl to die so he can keep on raking in the dough!

What a despicable accusation.

You read it how you wanted too. Fauci has been played by both political parties. If he leans towards the administrations point of view he’s vilified by the left and the media. When he goes against the president he’s down played by the administration. The media loves this story line as it creates tension and hysteria. The big pharmaceutical companies know this will be multi billion dollar epidemic for them.

Thanks for manning up first and asking for clarification. Instead you attacked my post and I. Bravo @XXXIVwin , now I feel humbled by your unwarranted attack and profound display of all knowledge. Oops, I went ahead and blocked you to keep my sanity from your point of view.

 

[XXXIVwin]

You read it how you wanted too. Fauci has been played by both political parties. If he leans towards the administrations point of view he’s vilified by the left and the media. When he goes against the president he’s down played by the administration. The media loves this story line as it creates tension and hysteria. The big pharmaceutical companies know this will be multi billion dollar epidemic for them.

Thanks for manning up first and asking for clarification. Instead you attacked my post and I. Bravo @XXXIVwin , now I feel humbled by your unwarranted attack and profound display of all knowledge. Oops, I went ahead and blocked you to keep my sanity from your point of view.

Your post clearly stated that Fauci was “making a living off this total chaos” and therefore would not “want a solution.”

You also compared him to the man who assassinated JFK.

This is within the context of Fauci having to get extra personal security due to constant death threats levied against him, his wife, and his kids.

 

[XXXIVwin]

Trump Testing Chief Brett Giroir Says To ‘Move On’ From Hydroxychloroquine

‘The evidence does not show Hydroxychloroquine is effective,’ Adm. Giroir stated, pointing to treatments like Remdesivir and steroids as alternatives.

www.google.com

Admiral Brett Giroir:

“At this point in time, there’s been five randomized-control placebo-controlled trials that do not show any benefit to hydroxychloroquine,” he said. “We don’t recommend that as a treatment. There’s no evidence to show that it is.”

 

[-X-]

Trump Testing Chief Brett Giroir Says To ‘Move On’ From Hydroxychloroquine

‘The evidence does not show Hydroxychloroquine is effective,’ Adm. Giroir stated, pointing to treatments like Remdesivir and steroids as alternatives.

www.google.com

Admiral Brett Giroir:

“At this point in time, there’s been five randomized-control placebo-controlled trials that do not show any benefit to hydroxychloroquine,” he said. “We don’t recommend that as a treatment. There’s no evidence to show that it is.”

Just curious here, but why are you so invested in proving that this particular drug has no benefit? Again, I don't really care if it does or if it doesn't, but that statement right there is patently false. It may not have a benefit in a large control group, but it absolutely has worked in combination with zinc therapy. Hell, even a congressman is taking it right now (under Dr supervision).


View: https://twitter.com/replouiegohmert/status/1289299030325866497