Removed
-
wrote on 28 Jul 2020, 12:23 last edited by
17 million views before taken down...
-
wrote on 28 Jul 2020, 12:27 last edited by
Lesson to Breitbart: if you don’t want to be cut off by a non-governmental third party, host your live stream on your own platform.
-
wrote on 28 Jul 2020, 12:35 last edited by
Or change the law.
-
wrote on 28 Jul 2020, 12:43 last edited by
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.
-
wrote on 28 Jul 2020, 12:53 last edited by
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 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.
wrote on 28 Jul 2020, 12:54 last edited by Catseye3@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.
wrote on 28 Jul 2020, 13:31 last edited byI 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.
wrote on 28 Jul 2020, 16:35 last edited by -
wrote on 28 Jul 2020, 16:50 last edited by xenon
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?
-
wrote on 29 Jul 2020, 03:29 last edited by Rainman
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.
-
wrote on 29 Jul 2020, 04:13 last edited by
It will be good to hear Ax's thoughts on it.
-
wrote on 29 Jul 2020, 05:13 last edited by
Ax doesn't have thoughts. He waits until the democrats tell him what to think.
-
wrote on 29 Jul 2020, 16:36 last edited by
-
wrote on 29 Jul 2020, 22:53 last edited by
-
wrote on 29 Jul 2020, 23:07 last edited by
If I had COVID, and the cocktail was offered, I'd take it.
-
wrote on 29 Jul 2020, 23:09 last edited by jon-nyc
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.
wrote on 29 Jul 2020, 23:15 last edited by -
Demon semen, alien DNA, and hydroxychloroquine?
We gotta think of a name for that cocktail.
wrote on 29 Jul 2020, 23:30 last edited by -
wrote on 30 Jul 2020, 02:03 last edited by
