Removed
-
I think that if Facebook sees something they consider could damage public health being posted on their channel, they should have right to remove it.
These people clearly have an agenda that is at odds with the vast majority of medical professionals and experts in the field. I don't see why the government should help people spread what is widely considered to be misinformation. There's enough morons out there already refusing to wear masks without these troublemakers adding to the confusion.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Removed:
I think that if Facebook sees something they consider could damage public health being posted on their channel, they should have right to remove it.
I'm confused. I'm not comfortable with FB having removal power over something they disagree with. OTOH, I'm even more skeeved by the prospect of FB standing by and allowing a showing of something that is patently dangerous -- especially, as you say, since there are enough morons out there who will take anything they see as official truth because HEY, IT'S ON FACEBOOK!!!
With every passing day, I grow closer to the belief that social media do more harm than good. How To Groom Your Poodle = good. Things To Avoid When Organizing A Protest In Your City = not so.
-
I don't agree with their point, but that doesn't make them morons. Facebook or Twitter is the new town square and as such, people should be allowed to drool in public.
I don't agree with their point, but that doesn't make them morons. Facebook or Twitter is the new town square and as such, people should be allowed to drool in public.
This is a couple of steps back from people posting anti-semitic rants on YouTube, but I believe that websites should have the power to stop people doing that.
I don't have a right be to broadcast on network TV. Why should YouTube be treated any differently? Because they give the opportunity to so many more people, they should be forced to give the opportunity to everybody?
-
I don't agree with their point, but that doesn't make them morons. Facebook or Twitter is the new town square and as such, people should be allowed to drool in public.
-
Facebook and Twitter are not a public square and never will be. They are built, owned and operated on private capital.
If the government wants a tech based public square, then build a public square... kinda like how they actually owned the airwaves for networks or how they used public dollars to build an actual physical public square.
It makes no sense to try and fit the concept of "public square" retroactively into private entities.
Social media legislation may be one of the most important thing to get right for the health of democracies going forward.
If Google thinks it's in their profit maximizing interest to ban Frontline Doctors on their platform - what should stop them from doing that?
-
OK. As usual, after the video was taken down, the media explained the rationale. Removed from everywhere, except. . . BitChute.
I watched the whole thing. There was NOTHING said by any of the MD's as was reported by the media. There were even accusations of "witch doctor" and voodoo that I came across from those that scoffed at these doctors, justifying the correctness of the Masters of the Universe protecting us all from evil.
So, here it is. I'd be curious if this changes the opinions of those that believe censorship was anything other than politically driven:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/HeC0tHZDX7dk/
Watch a few minutes, skip around, find the misinformation.
George and Bach, I'd be interested in your take. Maybe I'm missing something. But I'm comforted that if I am missing something, Ax will help find the hidden meanings. He's great at that, certainly better than me. Wish I could have embedded the video instead of just a link.
-
Demon semen, alien DNA, and hydroxychloroquine?
We gotta think of a name for that cocktail.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
Demon semen, alien DNA, and hydroxychloroquine?
We gotta think of a name for that cocktail.
-
Demon semen, alien DNA, and hydroxychloroquine?
We gotta think of a name for that cocktail.
-
Jon, I know I can come across as an idiot.
But I expect more from you.
Whatever you do, DO NOT look up the resumes of the participating doctors, it just might surprise you that your background does not come even close to their extraordinary backgrounds.Let's see if I can capture the contemporary perspective: If they drown, they're human, if they float, they are canceled. Simple!
-
If you Google Doctor Stella Immanuel you'll find she certainly has an extraordinary background.
-
If you Google Doctor Stella Immanuel you'll find she certainly has an extraordinary background.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Removed:
If you Google Doctor Stella Immanuel you'll find she certainly has an extraordinary background.
Shut up, Orange Man Bad guy. TDS.
-
No, Aqua.
If I get time, I'll type out some of their resumes. Very impressive. I've got their resumes paused on a video, I don't know how to capture an image off of a video, which was taken before their web site was taken down.BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT!
The overriding point is that the Masters of the Universe are at the forefront of cancel culture, and they could care less what anyone, including congress, says. They eliminated these physicians and by extension their expertise and input, by pulling them off of YouTube, Twitter, etc. Instead of supporting or bashing them in the public, they removed them all from the public square. Simple. Imagine having that kind of power!
That is past dangerous. That scares the shit out of me.
-
The bbc link is also just horseshit.
"And in 2005 she said. . . " (for example).Oh? This one doctor represents everyone else?
Maybe. But how about a screen shot of the actual tweet, or a video of what she said in a sermon, etc.Nope. It's all just to be taken in faith, the journalist does not need to provide actual evidence. I wonder why not? An actual video where we can see and hear what she said, in her own words.
And even if she is some kind of nut, what does that mean?
Imagine if someone focused upon one of us on this forum, and then used the one person to represent everyone else on this forum. How accurate would that be?
It's all so obvious, but leads back to my assessment that pulling the plug on her, or on anyone, is censorship and is WRONG.
