5 ms·

This is a bogus argument. The protestors are advocating for behavior that will literally kill people, including medical personnel. The protesters are no differe

This is a bogus argument. The protestors are advocating for behavior that will literally kill people, including medical personnel. The protesters are no different than those who call for deadly riots or civil war. They deserve to be shut down for jeopardizing public health and safety.

octocop 6y ago
Why not monitor the movements of the ones in the group and alert the local police of their whereabouts, maybe arrest a few of them and it would be an even bigger statement
devmunchies 6y ago
any decision can kill people, whether its motor traffic laws, junk food laws, or smoking laws, or quarantine laws. its all open for debate and should not be deplatformed for mere protest. There is a point where quarantine does more damage than good, especially when thinking big picture and government control.
- edgefield0 6y ago
  Yes, because all of those examples are equivalent to intentionally spreading a pandemic with no known vaccine or treatment with a 1-2% rate of death, where medical professionals and poor people will be disproportionately impacted.
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    Heart disease is responsible for a quarter of all deaths in the US. Facebook distributing adds for Coke is going to cause for more deaths than all the worlds quarantine protest groups combined. Deplatforming groups for petitioning the government is a tremendously alarming decision from Facebook. Regardless of what you think about FB being a corporate platform, the worlds civil liberties have been switched off along side the economy. Governments have a terrible track record of abdicating the powers they seize during crises, and are all talking about a “new normal”, as if we shouldn’t expect freedom of movement or privacy to return once this is over. These people have every right to petition their government (in the US at least), and FB deplatforming them is a serious cause for concern, especially under the guise of “misinformation”.
    - inscionent 6y ago
      I can't catch heart disease and die in 2 weeks because of someone's poor hygiene. If the CocaCola Corporation were advertising "Coke Float" parties right now, would that be okay? FB does not owe an person access to FB, they only do it for the Coke ad dollars...
      - AmericanChopper 6y ago
        The legal questions of what FB’s rights are to control their platform are irrelevant to a discussion on the merits of how they choose to do it (and I’d suggest aren’t as clear cut as your implying). If you’re isolating, then you also can’t catch coronavirus from somebody attending a protest. If you’re out in public, then you could also be randomly struck by a car (unintentional injuries are the 3rd leading cause of death in the US). Do you have the same view on advertisements for Ford? These people are exercising their constitutional right to petition their government. Facebook is trying to prevent them from doing it because they don’t want them to. No matter how justified you think that is, it is anti-civil liberties, and anti-democracy. They are also doing so (at least according to the reports I’ve read), under the guise of preventing misinformation. Again, no matter how justified you think it is, it has nothing to do with misinformation, and is a clear signal of how they intend to apply “misinformation” moderation. The problem that underlines all of this is that no private organization should have the power to control citizens to this extent. Regardless of what you think of these protestors, Mark Zuckerberg should not be the final arbiter on whether or not they’re allowed to organise themselves. HN and many other communities like it are very vocal about what services people should have access to, things like housing, transport, healthcare... but for speech all of a sudden we need a central authority to determine who’s worthy of access.
        slashtom 6y ago
        Facebook is a corporation that can make decisions based on what they believe the shareholders would want. To simply throw out their rights to control their platform is anti-civil liberties and anti-democracy as well. If you and others do not want to visit Facebook that's your right and your right to publicize, they do not owe you or me, anything. If it turns out more people agree with you, Facebook will feel it with their stock price and most likely make adjustments. To say that they owe the public a free-space, is a leap if not a huge jump..
  - holler 6y ago
    It's likely that the mortality rate is around 0.1-0.2% which is the same as seasonal influenza. https://reason.com/2020/04/20/l-a-county-antibody-tests-suggest-the-fatality-rate-for-covid-19-is-much-lower-than-people-feared/ https://reason.com/2020/04/20/l-a-county-antibody-tests-sugg...
    - edgefield0 6y ago
      Except when every ICU bed is taken and there are no ventilators available, the mortality rate is probably in the 3-5% rate.
      - MikeAmelung 6y ago
        Oh, this again. Most people that get on a ventilator don't make it off alive. So I think we can put this bullshit to bed. https://newsroom.uw.edu/news/early-study-covid-19-patients-shows-high-mortality-rate https://newsroom.uw.edu/news/early-study-covid-19-patients-s... That's the study with the BEST outcomes. Every other study shows an even higher mortality rate among those ventilated.
- glitcher 6y ago
  Looks like the strawman has some offspring now.
0xy 6y ago
The deaths caused by the coronavirus will be nothing compared to the deaths caused by economic destruction. A 30% unemployment rate will kill substantially more people than the coronavirus. In fact, you could argue the protesters are advocating for behavior that would prevent people from dying (people who get laid off and are now in poverty). As you should know, poverty carries a much higher mortality rate.
- edgefield0 6y ago
  Not if a competent government provided leadership and managed the process, including the period of isolation and financial support for those in need. Instead we have the bumbling Trump administration and the GOP sycophants, which is providing no leadership and directing billions of dollars to those who least need it.
- lovegoblin 6y ago
  > As you should know, poverty carries a much higher mortality rate. But it needn't. They could be advocating for social safety nets, but instead they want the right to put others at risk.
- phakding 6y ago
  You have no data to support this.
  - 0xy 6y ago
    Would you mind refuting specific points rather than disregarding my entire argument?
    - phakding 6y ago
      Your claim that the ensuing poverty will cause more deaths then corona virus. Do you have anything to support this? You made a claim so the onus is on you to provide supporting data. I don't need to refute anything at this juncture.
      - 6y ago
PretzelFisch 6y ago
Their behavior would almost seems equivalent to "yelling fire in a movie theater".
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  You need to stretch the definition of "almost" quite a bit in order to achieve that.
dntbnmpls 6y ago
Your comment exemplified the basis of all tyranny. Mindless hyperbolic fear. > The protestors are advocating for behavior that will literally kill people, including medical personnel. No they are not. No more than those advocating for the repeal of prohibition advocated for drunk driving. > The protesters are no different than those who call for deadly riots or civil war. They are very different. You're mindset is akin to blaming those who protested for civil rights for "deadly riots or civil war". It's amazing how your arguments are so similar to those who wanted to shut down civil rights' protests. > They deserve to be shut down for jeopardizing public health and safety. This type of thinking is why constitutional rights are under so much threat. Just an extreme rehash of "Won't you think of the children" fearmongering to take away rights.

octocop 6y ago

Why not monitor the movements of the ones in the group and alert the local police of their whereabouts, maybe arrest a few of them and it would be an even bigger statement

devmunchies 6y ago

any decision can kill people, whether its motor traffic laws, junk food laws, or smoking laws, or quarantine laws. its all open for debate and should not be deplatformed for mere protest. There is a point where quarantine does more damage than good, especially when thinking big picture and government control.

edgefield0 6y ago
Yes, because all of those examples are equivalent to intentionally spreading a pandemic with no known vaccine or treatment with a 1-2% rate of death, where medical professionals and poor people will be disproportionately impacted.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  Heart disease is responsible for a quarter of all deaths in the US. Facebook distributing adds for Coke is going to cause for more deaths than all the worlds quarantine protest groups combined. Deplatforming groups for petitioning the government is a tremendously alarming decision from Facebook. Regardless of what you think about FB being a corporate platform, the worlds civil liberties have been switched off along side the economy. Governments have a terrible track record of abdicating the powers they seize during crises, and are all talking about a “new normal”, as if we shouldn’t expect freedom of movement or privacy to return once this is over. These people have every right to petition their government (in the US at least), and FB deplatforming them is a serious cause for concern, especially under the guise of “misinformation”.
  - inscionent 6y ago
    I can't catch heart disease and die in 2 weeks because of someone's poor hygiene. If the CocaCola Corporation were advertising "Coke Float" parties right now, would that be okay? FB does not owe an person access to FB, they only do it for the Coke ad dollars...
    - AmericanChopper 6y ago
      The legal questions of what FB’s rights are to control their platform are irrelevant to a discussion on the merits of how they choose to do it (and I’d suggest aren’t as clear cut as your implying). If you’re isolating, then you also can’t catch coronavirus from somebody attending a protest. If you’re out in public, then you could also be randomly struck by a car (unintentional injuries are the 3rd leading cause of death in the US). Do you have the same view on advertisements for Ford? These people are exercising their constitutional right to petition their government. Facebook is trying to prevent them from doing it because they don’t want them to. No matter how justified you think that is, it is anti-civil liberties, and anti-democracy. They are also doing so (at least according to the reports I’ve read), under the guise of preventing misinformation. Again, no matter how justified you think it is, it has nothing to do with misinformation, and is a clear signal of how they intend to apply “misinformation” moderation. The problem that underlines all of this is that no private organization should have the power to control citizens to this extent. Regardless of what you think of these protestors, Mark Zuckerberg should not be the final arbiter on whether or not they’re allowed to organise themselves. HN and many other communities like it are very vocal about what services people should have access to, things like housing, transport, healthcare... but for speech all of a sudden we need a central authority to determine who’s worthy of access.
      - slashtom 6y ago
        Facebook is a corporation that can make decisions based on what they believe the shareholders would want. To simply throw out their rights to control their platform is anti-civil liberties and anti-democracy as well. If you and others do not want to visit Facebook that's your right and your right to publicize, they do not owe you or me, anything. If it turns out more people agree with you, Facebook will feel it with their stock price and most likely make adjustments. To say that they owe the public a free-space, is a leap if not a huge jump..
- holler 6y ago
  It's likely that the mortality rate is around 0.1-0.2% which is the same as seasonal influenza. https://reason.com/2020/04/20/l-a-county-antibody-tests-suggest-the-fatality-rate-for-covid-19-is-much-lower-than-people-feared/ https://reason.com/2020/04/20/l-a-county-antibody-tests-sugg...
  - edgefield0 6y ago
    Except when every ICU bed is taken and there are no ventilators available, the mortality rate is probably in the 3-5% rate.
    - MikeAmelung 6y ago
      Oh, this again. Most people that get on a ventilator don't make it off alive. So I think we can put this bullshit to bed. https://newsroom.uw.edu/news/early-study-covid-19-patients-shows-high-mortality-rate https://newsroom.uw.edu/news/early-study-covid-19-patients-s... That's the study with the BEST outcomes. Every other study shows an even higher mortality rate among those ventilated.
glitcher 6y ago
Looks like the strawman has some offspring now.

0xy 6y ago

The deaths caused by the coronavirus will be nothing compared to the deaths caused by economic destruction. A 30% unemployment rate will kill substantially more people than the coronavirus. In fact, you could argue the protesters are advocating for behavior that would prevent people from dying (people who get laid off and are now in poverty). As you should know, poverty carries a much higher mortality rate.

edgefield0 6y ago
Not if a competent government provided leadership and managed the process, including the period of isolation and financial support for those in need. Instead we have the bumbling Trump administration and the GOP sycophants, which is providing no leadership and directing billions of dollars to those who least need it.
lovegoblin 6y ago
> As you should know, poverty carries a much higher mortality rate. But it needn't. They could be advocating for social safety nets, but instead they want the right to put others at risk.
phakding 6y ago
You have no data to support this.
- 0xy 6y ago
  Would you mind refuting specific points rather than disregarding my entire argument?
  - phakding 6y ago
    Your claim that the ensuing poverty will cause more deaths then corona virus. Do you have anything to support this? You made a claim so the onus is on you to provide supporting data. I don't need to refute anything at this juncture.
    - 6y ago

PretzelFisch 6y ago

Their behavior would almost seems equivalent to "yelling fire in a movie theater".

dependenttypes 6y ago
You need to stretch the definition of "almost" quite a bit in order to achieve that.

dntbnmpls 6y ago

Your comment exemplified the basis of all tyranny. Mindless hyperbolic fear. > The protestors are advocating for behavior that will literally kill people, including medical personnel. No they are not. No more than those advocating for the repeal of prohibition advocated for drunk driving. > The protesters are no different than those who call for deadly riots or civil war. They are very different. You're mindset is akin to blaming those who protested for civil rights for "deadly riots or civil war". It's amazing how your arguments are so similar to those who wanted to shut down civil rights' protests. > They deserve to be shut down for jeopardizing public health and safety. This type of thinking is why constitutional rights are under so much threat. Just an extreme rehash of "Won't you think of the children" fearmongering to take away rights.