20 ms·

Facebook freezes Venezuela president Maduro's page over Covid-19

153 points by ibraheemdev 6y ago

abhinav22 6y ago
Not sure about this - I don’t think government leaders or anybody should be censored. Better to have public health messages as part of the platform than to censor It’s a fine line between hate and misinformation and dissent (Clearly the content in question is wrong; but in other cases, WHO and others been proven incorrect - eg on masks and asymptotic transmission) Don’t know what the answer is, we don’t want echo chambers of misinformation, but we want to live in a democratic society too...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- m45t3r 6y ago
  There is a big difference between OMS and populist leaders like Maduro/Bolsonaro/Trump. What OMS said about masks and asymptomatic cases were the best we known about the pandemic at the current time (we still didn't have many studies on how the virus propagated). Once it became clear that masks helps and asymptomatic cases are super spreaders, OMS changed the tone quickly. Populist leaders say things about remedies that study after study shown that there is no efficacy and they never change their tone because it would mean they're wrong. Instead, they simple jump for the next "miracle" solution.
  - m45t3r 6y ago
    Also, context matters. OMS avoided recommending masks at the start of the pandemic since no study showed the efficacy of it, and there was no mass production of masks yet. So recommending it for general population would only generate shortage of masks for those who needed (frontline medics and nurses treating the cases). So this is why they're so against it.
    - briandear 6y ago
      > and there was no mass production of masks yet But that’s not what they said. Fauci said “healthy people do not need to wear masks.” So he either lied then or is lying now. The reason for the lie is irrelevant. If healthy people should wear masks, the lack of production capability doesn’t change the fact. If masks work and Fauci knew they worked, then his statement that healthy people don’t need masks was scientific fraud. His exact words: “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.” That statement was either patently false, or it was true and his current statements are patently false. Did he lie in order to protect mask supplies? Did some new groundbreaking study come out during the next few months? Of course not. So why would a rational person trust anything coming from Fauci given that we don’t know if it’s the truth, or just some manipulative statement based on whatever the political need happens to be at the time? To be even more cynical, ask oneself why certain older mask-related research papers have been censored? https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/data-do-not-back-cloth-masks-limit-covid-19-experts-say https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/data-do-...
      - bryan0 6y ago
        > That statement was either patently false, or it was true and his current statements are patently false. You’re actually missing the correct option which is that scientific consensus has shifted on this issue. Science is a process for the truth and conclusions can change with more evidence.
        e2021 6y ago
        People keep saying this, but it doesn't make it true. The consensus of public health officials changed for sure, but I haven't seen any evidence that the science changed at all
        6y ago
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    I'm guessing most people here will have no idea what you mean by OMS - the English name is WHO (World Health Organization).
    - m45t3r 6y ago
      Yeah, thanks for the correction.
- jamesgreenleaf 6y ago
  Another problem is that something like this can function as "evidence" for the claim. There are large groups of people who believe that censorship like this validates a worldview in which powerful interests are censoring true information in order to maintain control. It's similar to the Streisand Effect or "Banned in Boston" but for belief rather than attention. It seems like the better solution is to have an outpouring of discussion around how and why the claim is wrong. Let others ridicule the statements, rather than shutting down discussion. You'll never convince everyone, but at least you'd avoid the validation-by-censorship effect. I could be wrong on this though. I don't really have any evidence or data that would show doing it one way is better than the other. I suppose I simply prefer open discussion.
  - lupire 6y ago
    It's a hard problem. Liars can spam lies much faster than honest people can debunk it.
    - BaseS4 6y ago
      To counter this we should preemptively ban people just to make sure no one lies ever again.
  - hrktb 6y ago
    One issue is that it’s asymmetrical. Made up statements have more resonance and shocking value than well thought rebuffs or ridicule. If you accuse your opponent of eating babies at breakfast, other parties will have a hard time to find something as punchy, and some minority of people will swallow your statement. Throw around enough of these and you’ll have a large base covered, with your opponents left scrambling for boring or after the fact retorts that won’t have the same reach.
    - aetherson 6y ago
      And that is why you, yourself, believe lots of wrong things like this, right?
- concordDance 6y ago
  > It’s a fine line between hate and misinformation and dissent "Hate" is a pretty Orwellian[1] word in this context, with a meaning pretty far from its usage a couple of decades ago. Most usage I've seen has a distictively political bend. E.g. "X are stupid and science proves it!" is not hate when X is "conservatives" but is when X is "muslims". [1] see the section on meaningless words: https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/ https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli... > Don’t know what the answer is, we don’t want echo chambers of misinformation, but we want to live in a democratic society too If we want less echo chambers we'd need to stop censoring and banning those who disagree with us, otherwise they go elsewhere, encountering those similarly ostracized and form a natural echo chamber.
  - sofixa 6y ago
    I don't think anyone claims that "X is stupid" is hate, regardless of how broad or nonsensical X is. X should die, or X are vile subhumans stealing our jobs, or we should rape X, or X are raping our dogs is hate.
    - pitay 6y ago
      Do remember that something like 'fossil fuels are destroying the environment' would be called 'hate speech' if power shifted a bit. 'Hate' is an emotive term used to bypass peoples thinking so that criticism of certain things can be disposed of by emotion rather than evidence. People bringing up evidence of malfeasance could be called 'hate filled' people, have what they say aggressively censored, so that other people only hear these are 'hate filled' people and what they say be buried so that inconvenient information doesn't come out.
      - sofixa 6y ago
        There's an expression in my native language which, directly translated, is something along these lines: "If my grandma had a rotor, she'd be a helicopter". I think it perfectly encapsulates your "slippery slope" argument, that if today we accept that saying you want to rape someone on Twitter is hate that needs to be stopped, tomorrow saying that processed foods are bad will be hate as well. Do you even realise how stupid your argument sounds? We're not talking about criticism. Were Nazis "criticizing" Jews? Do racists "criticize" other "races"? No, they hate them, and there is a pretty heavy difference between the two.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  You don’t really need to worry about drawing the line between facts and lies just because you remove the 10% most blatant disinformation. It doesn’t make Facebook the final arbiter of truth. There are things that are controversial or debated and Facebook and others stay away from that. Advocating injecting bleach or eating albinos to cure Covid is one thing while arguing the amount of asymptotic transmission is another thing entirely.
  - bopbeepboop 6y ago
    Okay — but in practice, channels on YouTube and Facebook merely mentioning COVID have to resort to euphemisms due to the extreme censorship. So your claim they “stay away from” controversial or genuinely disputed topics is plain wrong: they censor those topics heavily on FB and YT to shape narratives — from COVID to Amber Heard beating her spouse. Your idealized “just a little” censorship has already been exceeded — showing why it’s impractical as a political idea: it’s inherently unstable.
  - wincy 6y ago
    Does Facebook ban controversial statements such as “children should be given hormone blocking therapy if they request it, regardless of the wishes of their parents, even if it sterilizes them” or “transgender women should be allowed to go to/volunteer at battered women’s shelters”. Espousing the opposing viewpoint is a fast track to getting banned from Twitter/Facebook or wherever else. Note I’m not making a judgement about these statements, merely using them as examples of things that absolutely won’t get you kicked off of Facebook for advocating.
    - mensetmanusman 6y ago
      That will not happen, it’s not about enforcing morality, it’s about strengthening an ideology by erasing competing messages.
    - watwut 6y ago
      This is first time I see someone worry about trans in battered women shelter. It just sounds like one of these made up issues that actual domestic violence activists dont seem to care about. Battered women shelters also dont always have exclusively female staff. They do lean more female afaik, but penis won't prevent you to work as lawyer, psychologist, security etc. What that worry shows mostly is that whoever is creating panic about this one was never interested in domestic violence - nor even curious about it.
- mc32 6y ago
  Obviously Maduro is a problematic despotic leader, but who are Facebook to be arbiters of thrush and falsehood? We’ve gone down the path of good intentions that leads to hell. Does this not interfere with self determination? Is there one true north now? Have Facebook found all truth? This is getting ridiculous.
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    For their own platform? Facebook is, obviously. How is this even a question? It's not like a head of state doesn't have plenty of power to send messages through other means. Since when are private actors obligated to let them speak on private platforms?
    - whydoyoucare 6y ago
      Facebook doing it of its own volition is one thing, and I'd argue they are within the right to do so. Government pressurizing Facebook to censor stuff is entirely other ballgame, which poses a bigger risk, and nobody seems to be paying attention to. (Most attention is given to the content being censored, not the actors behind the censorship).
      - TulliusCicero 6y ago
        I agree that this is an issue. The first amendment should protect private actors here from government influence over their own membership policies, other than certain narrow exceptions like protected classes. Don't like that they ban too many left-wingers/right-wingers? Feel free to get mad about it, just don't get thinking that this is somehow illegal, or should be.
        peytn 6y ago
        I think people are mad about the perceived abuse of liability protections enjoyed by these private actors. In my opinion that is totally valid.
    - bordercases 6y ago
- darkwizard42 6y ago
  Then they can spout whatever they want through their official channels. Facebook doesn't need to and isn't obligated to host their content. In this case, Facebook can do what they please. Any uproar should be directed at the government which can go about using official channels as they please (press conferences, news releases, official government web pages)
- jayd16 6y ago
  You have it backwards. We should be worried about being forced to broadcast political messages we think are lies. The real problem is that Facebook is in a position of such power and market control that moderation feels like censorship.
  - postmeta 6y ago
    True! We need to demand accountability from platforms for amplifying messages without transparent traceability of information.
- gameswithgo 6y ago
  Well then you can pay for some servers for people to post text and leave up the text that you think is reasonable.
  - geoduck14 6y ago
    Like Parler?
- codabool 6y ago
  WHO statement on masks was misleading but I didn't see it as wrong (only wrong in the sense that they should focus on people's perception of their statements). They said that there was no evidence that masks help. Which was true at the time. They paired that statement with suggestions use a variety of prevention methods. The statement from Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove that symptomatic patients being "very rare" was definitely wrong. But she back tracked the next day and said it only possible they are rare and was aware of the 40% models which have now come out to be much closer to the truth.
  - ergocoder 6y ago
    This is like your wife coming home and shout "there is no evidence that I cheated on you today". It's the truth, but wtf? WHO has been extremely incompetent in communicating with public. Their tweets were shockingly bad and misleading.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  We have a mechanism for this. It’s defining protected classes. I don’t see an argument for putting Maduro’s speech into a protected class.
- tomjen3 6y ago
  Strong disagree, at this point people have choosen sides and any attempt to influence people one way or the other will look either pathetic, at an absolute best, or hamfisted if you don't roll a natural 20. And you really don't want more hamfisted attempts to educate people to your way of seeing the world unless you also want to repeat january 6th.
ezconnect 6y ago
Crazy people don't know they are crazy. Facebook from now on will decide what is correct and what is wrong, even though they don't know what is correct and what is wrong.
- Craighead 6y ago
  Is the world flat? How do you know? Your logic is flawed.
d3nj4l 6y ago
Wait, Trump promoting chloroquine as a miracle cure and recommending bleach injections were okay, but Maduro doing the same can get him banned?
- concordDance 6y ago
  > recommending bleach injections This is a mischaracterization.
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    Trump spitballed about injecting disinfectants into people's lungs. He didn't say that individual people should do it, but he did say that doctors should test it out. > And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you're going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds - it sounds interesting to me. So we'll see. The specific disinfectants Trump was talking about were bleach and isopropyl alcohol. Trump's comments came right after a presentation by the undersecretary for Homeland Security about using these specific disinfectants to clean surfaces. Trump then genuinely appeared to think it might be a good idea to try these disinfectants out inside the human body. Anyone can watch the video and judge for themselves whether Trump was being sarcastic, as he later claimed - I think it's obvious that he was completely serious. * C-SPAN: https://www.c-span.org/video/?471458-1/president-trump-coronavirus-task-force-briefing https://www.c-span.org/video/?471458-1/president-trump-coron...
    - Mountain_Skies 6y ago
      So as the commenter said, a mischaracterization.
      - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
        A slight mischaracterization (doctors should do it, instead of people should do it themselves), and the original does not make Trump look any better. Edit: Looking again, OP did not misrepresent Trump's comment at all. Trump did clearly recommend that doctors try injecting disinfectants (including bleach) into patients.
varispeed 6y ago
Facebook is a private platform, so they should be able to censor whatever they want as long as it is not discriminatory against protected characteristics.
- annadane 6y ago
  Good god am I fucking sick and tired of the 'they're a private platform' argument
  - henryjcee 6y ago
    comedically broke take isn't it
    - Mountain_Skies 6y ago
      Especially since eventually the winds will change, as they always do, and the "but it's a private company" crowd will find little argument against these same companies as they press the censoring boot against their necks. Creating a monster just ends up with that monster running out of control destroying everyone but they naively believe they'll always have it on a tight leash.
  - dtauzell 6y ago
    Should be allowed to censor but we should still discuss if each particular instance is a good idea or not.
  - caseyscottmckay 6y ago
    What is a solution? Facebook is a private company, so they can do business as they please within the confines of applicable laws and regulations. Those laws and regulations say they can censor as they please on their platform. Should we enact laws forcing private platforms to give everyone a voice?
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      Perhaps. It's definitely a conversation worth having, given the advancements in public speech through social media. There is no reason to believe that 200-year-old laws should be the end of the conversation.
cabirum 6y ago
People should start thinking twice before using US-controlled platforms/services/anything.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  It is unfortunate, but US shot itself in the foot by proving that it is not willing to be a neutral third party, which it was perceived as in the 90s.
  - seoaeu 6y ago
    There's a balance though. You might have more power if you're perceived as neutral, but actually using power is inherently non-neutral
  - thinkingemote 6y ago
    They (social media companies) were given an ultimatum: censor or be broken up. It's almost explicit in the Congress/Senate hearings.
    - geoduck14 6y ago
      Do you have a source? I really want to read up on this.
  - ativzzz 6y ago
    The US hasn't been a neutral third party in any worldwide matter since WW1. The U.S's foreign policy is aggressively selfish (which is good for US citizens)
    - sthnblllII 6y ago
      I agree with everything but the last part. Invading Iraq got 6,000 Americans killed and did nothing to help US citizens outside of a corrupt few.
      - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dirtyid 6y ago
Has the panel of experts on censoring political leaders convened yet or is FB is doing bans on whims until then.
pumaontheprowl 6y ago
A lot of this is starting to remind me of the way Galileo and Darwin were treated for announcing their breakthroughs. I know nothing about this drug Maduro is touting, but I can't help worrying that one of these days somebody is going to find an actual cure and the world will never know about it because big social media companies exile them for wrongthink.
- dannyw 6y ago
  You don't announce the discovery of a miracle cure via social media, you announce it via clinical trial papers.
  - capableweb 6y ago
    You're just exemplifying the point. Who says you have to announce something a specific way first time? Back in the days it would be "you can't just publish trial papers, it has to go through the church"
    - marcosdumay 6y ago
      > Who says you have to announce something a specific way first time? Technically, at our current World state, government regulations say that. And yeah, you have to have the correct credentials and submit your paper to the correct institutions. Superficially, the system is architectured exactly like the one you are complaining, while in a deeper level every component works in a completely different way. What in practice means that it right now works quite well (could improve, but it works), but it's just a series of isolated institution failings (instead of a full system failure) away from becoming like the other. So, well, keep those institutions in check, but unless somebody comes up with a better system design, there's little point on complaining about it.
      - nradov 6y ago
        Which government regulations are those? Could you please provide a CFR citation?
alexwennerberg 6y ago
At least he still has his Mastodon account https://mastodon.social/@Nicolas_Maduro https://mastodon.social/@Nicolas_Maduro
lucian1900 6y ago
I don’t think you can really compete right-wing leaders beholden to private industry like Bolsonaro & Trump to left-wing anti-imperialist leaders that advocate for workers like Maduro.
- Der_Einzige 6y ago
  Maduro is a left-wing anti-imperalist in name only. Don't buy the propaganda that they release about how great he is. Venezuela wouldn't be a failed state if he were even half as corrupt as he is. Left wing politics in south america is used as a shibboleth. It's smoke and mirrors - not genuine anti-imperalism.
  - lucian1900 6y ago
    Better to blindly repeat CIA propaganda instead?
- alkonaut 6y ago
  What flag an authoritarian claims he’a waving isn’t very interesting. If you come to power by pointing at an enemy of “imperialism and capitalism” or “migrants and socialism” makes no difference. Authoritarian regimes are all the same.
  - lucian1900 6y ago
    Who convinced you Maduro is “authoritarian”? I find that more interesting to explore.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      Maduro convinced me, that's who. Specifically, Maduro's behavior in office for the last N years, and even more specifically, his behavior toward opposition parties. (Imagine Trump having Biden arrested in April 2020 on some transparently fake charges, so that Biden can't conduct a campaign. Trump wins the 2020 election, though there were "irregularities" in the vote. Then he dissolves Congress. Then in 2023, Trump arrests whoever the leading Democrat candidate is. Would that be authoritarian? I would say, absolutely yes.) I think it's more interesting to ask, who convinced you that Maduro is not authoritarian? And, what possible evidence would change your mind?
tmux314 6y ago
Facebook is acting on behalf of the US's long-term, bipartisan effort to undermine any Latin American government that doesn't grant its corporations access to that nation's resources. More specifically, the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations have undermined the Venezuelan government in many ways, including supporting coup attempts.[1] I'm not arguing that I support what Maduro said. He has an awful record as a leader. I'm arguing that this is the natural result of social media censorship. It's censorship by the US government by proxy. Here is a simple test to see if the above statement is true: would Facebook censor a world leader as swiftly and as severely if this were a leader of an allied state, or even a leader within our own government? [1] https://theintercept.com/2020/05/09/venezuela-coup-regime-change/ https://theintercept.com/2020/05/09/venezuela-coup-regime-ch...
dukeofdoom 6y ago
Say you are successful tech Billionaire. Watching your other billionaire friend's hubris get the better of him, and decide to take up flying only to crash into the ground. You go through some phase of self reflection, and realize you won't live forever, and so decide you can make the world a better place. You consult some self help books, listen to some new age mysticism, and read some exciting woke ideas about gender and critical theory. You are now ready to do "good". You fund every fringe woke charity, you pay forward for the right candidates. But as hard as you try, there are still these every day common folk, simple minded kind, that don't agree with all the goodness you are trying to foist onto the world. They make rude comments in online forums, doubt your every move, and they even have candidates that plays up to their ignorance. You seeth with disgust, and a bit of despair. Finally you decide the best way forward, is to not to give these people a platform to speak their simple minds. So you censor the internet, kick of their political leaders, and decide that in order for the world to be a better place, you must control the narrative. To win, you must control their simple minds. Its you and your allies that must write the truth of what the simple minded folk should think.
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  A shallowly cynical take, if I've ever seen one. What comments like this do their best to ignore, is that many people, perhaps most, agree that platforms bear some responsibility for managing misinformation and the like. But arguing that point requires targeting popular will, instead of an unpopular rich dude. Much easier to demonize someone few people like, than debate a position held by many in earnest.
  - umvi 6y ago
    I would argue many people (if not most) don't want platforms to be arbiters of truth. Because it's very hard to arbitrate truth in an unbiased manner. And more often than not truth arbiters eventually fall into the trap of promoting their own agendas.
    - macspoofing 6y ago
      I would argue that people don't want the platforms to adjudicate THEIR views and THEIR side. They are fine with the other side getting the shaft. The woke, mainstream media and Democrats, the groups that are succeeding in pushing Twitter and Facebook and social media to increase censorship are doing it because it's advantageous to them because either their political opponents are being suppressed, or, as is the case with NY Times and other mainstream outlets, it leads to financial advantages (more views, more clicks, therefore more money). It's also dismaying that even those on the left (as few as they are) that are against this kind of censorship, are against it because it could be used against them in the future (and it will) ... and not because it's the moral and ethical thing to let your political opponents have a platform to make their case.
Lazare 6y ago
Conventional wisdom in the US is that Maduro is a ruthless, violent dictator, who has suppressed opposition, smuggled drugs, funded terrorism, violated human rights, etc. But that doesn't get you kicked off Facebook. Facebook and Twitter happily provide platforms to violent, human rights abusing regimes. ...but recommend one snake oil cure for Covid-19, and suddenly the hammer drops, I guess? Interesting priorities.
- Sebb767 6y ago
  > But recommend a snake oil cure for Covid-19, and you'll be in real trouble. Except if you're in a position to get them in trouble. Remember that Trump (mostly) got away with this while in office.
- mountainb 6y ago
  Don't expect consistency: they just do whatever they think other people want them to do. You're expecting a higher level of thought than is really present. Their 'moral' guidepost is just whatever the blob of upper middle class fashionable opinion is.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Or rather they do whatever seems least likely to upset their major advertising customers. And that's not a bad thing: they have a business to run.
- agumonkey 6y ago
  First issues are fully political, the oil thing is mostly medical, it's less sensitive.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  I can kind of see the difference possibly being that Politics is slow moving. Journalists will call out bad behavior and other journalists will call out bad journalism. With some events - such as the pandemic, or the aftermath of the US election, information doesn’t have time to pass through the normal cycle. The damage is already done if a lie gets viral the wrong way. It’s better to suppress one truth and one lie (overreact) then. The key differentiator isn’t “how bad is this” but “how damaging is it if this information reaches X million people in 48 hours?”.
llaolleh 6y ago
I worry about this kind of censorship. There is no guarantee that the WHO is right either. Remember that the entire group of doctors thought blood letting was a good idea. How can we be sure that modern science doesn't have significant gaps in understanding either? Remember how the majority thought the housing market was too big to crash? I'd much prefer no censorship and let people decide for themselves. What we should be doing is trying to raise everyone's critical thinking game.
- abhinav22 6y ago
  > I'd much prefer no censorship and let people decide for themselves. What we should be doing is trying to raise everyone's critical thinking game. Indeed, raising everyone’s critical abilities is a great idea. Hopefully it gets done
- sofixa 6y ago
  > What we should be doing is trying to raise everyone's critical thinking game How do you propose we do that, and what do you propose while waiting for the day where that's the case? The proliferation of Q lunatics and anti-vaxxers shows that we're not really there and there are real-world deadly consequences to "letting people decide for themselves". When it comes to public health, most people can't decide for themselves because they lack the medical background needed to understand the science and decide.
  - alacombe 6y ago
    > How do you propose we do that, [...] ? Stop lying to them.
    - sofixa 6y ago
      Good, let's try to convince anti-vaxxers, Q people, Covid-deniers and what not of that, it will surely work! Of course it won't, because people tend to listen to other people due to a variety of reasons ( personal charisma, luck, circumstances, etc.). We wouldn't have cults and science deniers otherwise.
danaos 6y ago
I guess they complied [1] [1] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1375543592018657285 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1375543592018657285
olivermarks 6y ago
It's a disgrace that the USA, founded on a constitution that defends free speech, has globalist private companies operating out of the USA gagging opinions and dissent while blatantly amplifying factions and ideas it is aligned with. They have every right as a S230 regulated company to do this, but we have no other free speech places to go as alternative services are closed down. We are going to see Trump create a parallel social media universe platform shortly that will be a disaster for unity, beliefs and the credibility of what's left of the 'corporate entertainment media' as Tulsi Gabbard calls the oligarch owned omnipotent corporate 'news 'channels.
Izkata 6y ago
Carvativir is the same as (according to Wikipedia) or derived from (according to other sites) carvacrol. From this, it took me five minutes to find evidence that we should actually investigate this and can't just dismiss Maduro as wrong: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3768712/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3768712/ > Carvacrol alone exhibited high antiviral activity against RV with a SI of 33, but it was less efficient than the oil for the other viruses. Thus, Mexican oregano oil and its main component, carvacrol, are able to inhibit different human and animal viruses in vitro. Specifically, the antiviral effects of Mexican oregano oil on ACVR-HHV-1 and HRSV and of carvacrol on RV justify more detailed studies. Even just on Wikipedia, it mentions apparently well-known antimicrobial effects, which sounds like it may help with secondary pneumonia caused by COVID (so even putting aside the possibility of antiviral effects, it may help reduce some symptoms): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carvacrol#Toxicology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carvacrol#Toxicology
- shpongled 6y ago
  Killing viruses or bacteria in vitro is a vastly different thing than killing them in vivo. Also, if you want to cite some evidence, Braz J Microbiol might not be the best source. https://xkcd.com/1217/ https://xkcd.com/1217/
  - Izkata 6y ago
    > Killing viruses or bacteria in vitro is a vastly different thing than killing them in vivo. > https://xkcd.com/1217/ https://xkcd.com/1217/ Carvacrol is a component of oregano oil, a common herbal supplement. This is one case where the XKCD strip is clearly wrong. > Also, if you want to cite some evidence, Braz J Microbiol might not be the best source. Is the Brazilian Journal of Microbiology not trusted or something?
    - shpongled 6y ago
      > This is one case where the XKCD strip is clearly wrong. How so? > Is the Brazilian Journal of Microbiology not trusted or something? Well it's not Nature, that's for sure
andred14 6y ago
The reality is FB has been bought by the pharma/vackz companies and deletes anything contrary to this program however factual it may be. How about FB worry about itself and we adults will determine what is right and wrong for ourselves? As it always has been? FB has "moderated" 100% facts and science that I have posted in the past just because the information does not suit the current narrative of fear and destruction. This is wrong and should motivate you to find other platforms.
hetspookjee 6y ago
Luckily we soon have Facebook's Supreme Court deciding whom to censor or not. https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/inside-the-making-of-facebooks-supreme-court https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/inside-t...
StreamBright 6y ago
The beginning of the next era of humanity. Corporations wield more power than governments.
chmod600 6y ago
Can we just all agree that censorship is bad? All this "nuance" about censorship vs deplatforming, or worries about misinformation, just sound like rationalizing something we know is wrong. This power is always abused. It's always just another way to say "sure, I believe in democracy, so long as I get to 'educate' you and prevent you from hearing anything that might change your mind about who to vote for". Religion is "misinformation". How long before that is censored as well? Fundamentally, people scared of misinformation are people scared of diversity. They believe there's one right answer and that everyone must agree.
- postmeta 6y ago
  I agree that censorship of science is bad. Giving powerful people a free megaphone for their opinions and anecdotal bs is also bad. Nobody believes there is one right answer, but amplifying stupid is a recipe for disaster.
  - chmod600 6y ago
    It's not a megaphone. A megaphone forces people to hear whether they want to or not, and drowns out others trying to speak. A facebook page does neither.
  - russellendicott 6y ago
    Science is merely a tool. It's conclusions still must be interpreted and translated to fit in to a human shaped system. There are almost as many interpretations of the conclusions of science as there are interpretations of religious texts. Science shows us that eating too much leads to heart disease and shortens your lifespan. What conclusions do we draw from this? An extra 15 years of life is worth 90 years of a bland diet? Different people draw different conclusions. My point is that science alone is not a comprehensive guide to how a life should be lived. It requires some extra interpretation. In this Maduro COVID miracle cure situation it's obviously a ridiculous claim and could mislead thousands of people into taking a placebo pill and pulling their masks off and endangering the lives of other people. Facebook truly believes that they are right in their conclusion that Maduro's interpretation of "science" will lead to people getting hurt. They have a moral obligation to stop it lest someone accuse them of having blood on their hands. However, Maduro being in power has surely caused many thousands of people to die from political violence and starvation. What if stopping him from exposing himself as a fool and a liar has extended his position of power for another year? Psychology is also a science. The psychology behind why people would rally harder around a censored dictator. Which interpretation of science would kill more people? The answers aren't always clear.
drummer 6y ago
Because the WHO is the only source of truth...
throw7 6y ago
Ministries of Truth.
sailtronus 6y ago
The programmers from bigtechs are a shame to the country, giving backdoors to NSA/FBI so they can rule the country on they distorced notion of reality and conduct. But, what I can say, Internet has became the FBI, theres no unlogged machinne, no unlogged connection, no unlogged download, no unlogged transfer, all scripts... With all the OS metadata that you take, you spy, steal and take royalties on users inventions and patents, you buried America to a mass surveilence Big brother, planted home terrorism. And bring the entire world they corruption circles, dumping all countries liders phones, computers, lines, signal and wires, manipulating the midia, crashing planes, causing death, rage and lies, a perfect psicopath FBI world. The intelligence hacking forks agents, under russian/china flags, mocking in to their oun citizens, instiganting violence and supporting racism. The FBI brilliant Bitcoin invention to profit on hackers arrests. The linux intrusions with back doors into theur basis, direct in the foudantions. And all this, all, is in your house, my friend, with Aws, Face, Micros, Yout, goog, inst, tesl... you do nothing plugged, without an alarm setted, and if they want, they get you. You collaborate with the end of criativity and fund the shitcorruptnet. Tks
fukmbas 6y ago
So sick of the "buT wE sHoULD T ceNSOr" crowd. It's time we stop providing these idiots a platform.

153 points by ibraheemdev 6y ago

Not sure about this - I don’t think government leaders or anybody should be censored. Better to have public health messages as part of the platform than to censor It’s a fine line between hate and misinformation and dissent (Clearly the content in question is wrong; but in other cases, WHO and others been proven incorrect - eg on masks and asymptotic transmission) Don’t know what the answer is, we don’t want echo chambers of misinformation, but we want to live in a democratic society too...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
m45t3r 6y ago
There is a big difference between OMS and populist leaders like Maduro/Bolsonaro/Trump. What OMS said about masks and asymptomatic cases were the best we known about the pandemic at the current time (we still didn't have many studies on how the virus propagated). Once it became clear that masks helps and asymptomatic cases are super spreaders, OMS changed the tone quickly. Populist leaders say things about remedies that study after study shown that there is no efficacy and they never change their tone because it would mean they're wrong. Instead, they simple jump for the next "miracle" solution.
- m45t3r 6y ago
  Also, context matters. OMS avoided recommending masks at the start of the pandemic since no study showed the efficacy of it, and there was no mass production of masks yet. So recommending it for general population would only generate shortage of masks for those who needed (frontline medics and nurses treating the cases). So this is why they're so against it.
  - briandear 6y ago
    > and there was no mass production of masks yet But that’s not what they said. Fauci said “healthy people do not need to wear masks.” So he either lied then or is lying now. The reason for the lie is irrelevant. If healthy people should wear masks, the lack of production capability doesn’t change the fact. If masks work and Fauci knew they worked, then his statement that healthy people don’t need masks was scientific fraud. His exact words: “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.” That statement was either patently false, or it was true and his current statements are patently false. Did he lie in order to protect mask supplies? Did some new groundbreaking study come out during the next few months? Of course not. So why would a rational person trust anything coming from Fauci given that we don’t know if it’s the truth, or just some manipulative statement based on whatever the political need happens to be at the time? To be even more cynical, ask oneself why certain older mask-related research papers have been censored? https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/data-do-not-back-cloth-masks-limit-covid-19-experts-say https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/data-do-...
    - bryan0 6y ago
      > That statement was either patently false, or it was true and his current statements are patently false. You’re actually missing the correct option which is that scientific consensus has shifted on this issue. Science is a process for the truth and conclusions can change with more evidence.
      - e2021 6y ago
        People keep saying this, but it doesn't make it true. The consensus of public health officials changed for sure, but I haven't seen any evidence that the science changed at all
        6y ago
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  I'm guessing most people here will have no idea what you mean by OMS - the English name is WHO (World Health Organization).
  - m45t3r 6y ago
    Yeah, thanks for the correction.
jamesgreenleaf 6y ago
Another problem is that something like this can function as "evidence" for the claim. There are large groups of people who believe that censorship like this validates a worldview in which powerful interests are censoring true information in order to maintain control. It's similar to the Streisand Effect or "Banned in Boston" but for belief rather than attention. It seems like the better solution is to have an outpouring of discussion around how and why the claim is wrong. Let others ridicule the statements, rather than shutting down discussion. You'll never convince everyone, but at least you'd avoid the validation-by-censorship effect. I could be wrong on this though. I don't really have any evidence or data that would show doing it one way is better than the other. I suppose I simply prefer open discussion.
- lupire 6y ago
  It's a hard problem. Liars can spam lies much faster than honest people can debunk it.
  - BaseS4 6y ago
    To counter this we should preemptively ban people just to make sure no one lies ever again.
- hrktb 6y ago
  One issue is that it’s asymmetrical. Made up statements have more resonance and shocking value than well thought rebuffs or ridicule. If you accuse your opponent of eating babies at breakfast, other parties will have a hard time to find something as punchy, and some minority of people will swallow your statement. Throw around enough of these and you’ll have a large base covered, with your opponents left scrambling for boring or after the fact retorts that won’t have the same reach.
  - aetherson 6y ago
    And that is why you, yourself, believe lots of wrong things like this, right?
concordDance 6y ago
> It’s a fine line between hate and misinformation and dissent "Hate" is a pretty Orwellian[1] word in this context, with a meaning pretty far from its usage a couple of decades ago. Most usage I've seen has a distictively political bend. E.g. "X are stupid and science proves it!" is not hate when X is "conservatives" but is when X is "muslims". [1] see the section on meaningless words: https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/ https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli... > Don’t know what the answer is, we don’t want echo chambers of misinformation, but we want to live in a democratic society too If we want less echo chambers we'd need to stop censoring and banning those who disagree with us, otherwise they go elsewhere, encountering those similarly ostracized and form a natural echo chamber.
- sofixa 6y ago
  I don't think anyone claims that "X is stupid" is hate, regardless of how broad or nonsensical X is. X should die, or X are vile subhumans stealing our jobs, or we should rape X, or X are raping our dogs is hate.
  - pitay 6y ago
    Do remember that something like 'fossil fuels are destroying the environment' would be called 'hate speech' if power shifted a bit. 'Hate' is an emotive term used to bypass peoples thinking so that criticism of certain things can be disposed of by emotion rather than evidence. People bringing up evidence of malfeasance could be called 'hate filled' people, have what they say aggressively censored, so that other people only hear these are 'hate filled' people and what they say be buried so that inconvenient information doesn't come out.
    - sofixa 6y ago
      There's an expression in my native language which, directly translated, is something along these lines: "If my grandma had a rotor, she'd be a helicopter". I think it perfectly encapsulates your "slippery slope" argument, that if today we accept that saying you want to rape someone on Twitter is hate that needs to be stopped, tomorrow saying that processed foods are bad will be hate as well. Do you even realise how stupid your argument sounds? We're not talking about criticism. Were Nazis "criticizing" Jews? Do racists "criticize" other "races"? No, they hate them, and there is a pretty heavy difference between the two.
alkonaut 6y ago
You don’t really need to worry about drawing the line between facts and lies just because you remove the 10% most blatant disinformation. It doesn’t make Facebook the final arbiter of truth. There are things that are controversial or debated and Facebook and others stay away from that. Advocating injecting bleach or eating albinos to cure Covid is one thing while arguing the amount of asymptotic transmission is another thing entirely.
- bopbeepboop 6y ago
  Okay — but in practice, channels on YouTube and Facebook merely mentioning COVID have to resort to euphemisms due to the extreme censorship. So your claim they “stay away from” controversial or genuinely disputed topics is plain wrong: they censor those topics heavily on FB and YT to shape narratives — from COVID to Amber Heard beating her spouse. Your idealized “just a little” censorship has already been exceeded — showing why it’s impractical as a political idea: it’s inherently unstable.
- wincy 6y ago
  Does Facebook ban controversial statements such as “children should be given hormone blocking therapy if they request it, regardless of the wishes of their parents, even if it sterilizes them” or “transgender women should be allowed to go to/volunteer at battered women’s shelters”. Espousing the opposing viewpoint is a fast track to getting banned from Twitter/Facebook or wherever else. Note I’m not making a judgement about these statements, merely using them as examples of things that absolutely won’t get you kicked off of Facebook for advocating.
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    That will not happen, it’s not about enforcing morality, it’s about strengthening an ideology by erasing competing messages.
  - watwut 6y ago
    This is first time I see someone worry about trans in battered women shelter. It just sounds like one of these made up issues that actual domestic violence activists dont seem to care about. Battered women shelters also dont always have exclusively female staff. They do lean more female afaik, but penis won't prevent you to work as lawyer, psychologist, security etc. What that worry shows mostly is that whoever is creating panic about this one was never interested in domestic violence - nor even curious about it.
mc32 6y ago
Obviously Maduro is a problematic despotic leader, but who are Facebook to be arbiters of thrush and falsehood? We’ve gone down the path of good intentions that leads to hell. Does this not interfere with self determination? Is there one true north now? Have Facebook found all truth? This is getting ridiculous.
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  For their own platform? Facebook is, obviously. How is this even a question? It's not like a head of state doesn't have plenty of power to send messages through other means. Since when are private actors obligated to let them speak on private platforms?
  - whydoyoucare 6y ago
    Facebook doing it of its own volition is one thing, and I'd argue they are within the right to do so. Government pressurizing Facebook to censor stuff is entirely other ballgame, which poses a bigger risk, and nobody seems to be paying attention to. (Most attention is given to the content being censored, not the actors behind the censorship).
    - TulliusCicero 6y ago
      I agree that this is an issue. The first amendment should protect private actors here from government influence over their own membership policies, other than certain narrow exceptions like protected classes. Don't like that they ban too many left-wingers/right-wingers? Feel free to get mad about it, just don't get thinking that this is somehow illegal, or should be.
      - peytn 6y ago
        I think people are mad about the perceived abuse of liability protections enjoyed by these private actors. In my opinion that is totally valid.
  - bordercases 6y ago
darkwizard42 6y ago
Then they can spout whatever they want through their official channels. Facebook doesn't need to and isn't obligated to host their content. In this case, Facebook can do what they please. Any uproar should be directed at the government which can go about using official channels as they please (press conferences, news releases, official government web pages)
jayd16 6y ago
You have it backwards. We should be worried about being forced to broadcast political messages we think are lies. The real problem is that Facebook is in a position of such power and market control that moderation feels like censorship.
- postmeta 6y ago
  True! We need to demand accountability from platforms for amplifying messages without transparent traceability of information.
gameswithgo 6y ago
Well then you can pay for some servers for people to post text and leave up the text that you think is reasonable.
- geoduck14 6y ago
  Like Parler?
codabool 6y ago
WHO statement on masks was misleading but I didn't see it as wrong (only wrong in the sense that they should focus on people's perception of their statements). They said that there was no evidence that masks help. Which was true at the time. They paired that statement with suggestions use a variety of prevention methods. The statement from Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove that symptomatic patients being "very rare" was definitely wrong. But she back tracked the next day and said it only possible they are rare and was aware of the 40% models which have now come out to be much closer to the truth.
- ergocoder 6y ago
  This is like your wife coming home and shout "there is no evidence that I cheated on you today". It's the truth, but wtf? WHO has been extremely incompetent in communicating with public. Their tweets were shockingly bad and misleading.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
We have a mechanism for this. It’s defining protected classes. I don’t see an argument for putting Maduro’s speech into a protected class.
tomjen3 6y ago
Strong disagree, at this point people have choosen sides and any attempt to influence people one way or the other will look either pathetic, at an absolute best, or hamfisted if you don't roll a natural 20. And you really don't want more hamfisted attempts to educate people to your way of seeing the world unless you also want to repeat january 6th.

ezconnect 6y ago

Crazy people don't know they are crazy. Facebook from now on will decide what is correct and what is wrong, even though they don't know what is correct and what is wrong.

Craighead 6y ago
Is the world flat? How do you know? Your logic is flawed.

d3nj4l 6y ago

Wait, Trump promoting chloroquine as a miracle cure and recommending bleach injections were okay, but Maduro doing the same can get him banned?

concordDance 6y ago
> recommending bleach injections This is a mischaracterization.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  Trump spitballed about injecting disinfectants into people's lungs. He didn't say that individual people should do it, but he did say that doctors should test it out. > And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you're going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds - it sounds interesting to me. So we'll see. The specific disinfectants Trump was talking about were bleach and isopropyl alcohol. Trump's comments came right after a presentation by the undersecretary for Homeland Security about using these specific disinfectants to clean surfaces. Trump then genuinely appeared to think it might be a good idea to try these disinfectants out inside the human body. Anyone can watch the video and judge for themselves whether Trump was being sarcastic, as he later claimed - I think it's obvious that he was completely serious. * C-SPAN: https://www.c-span.org/video/?471458-1/president-trump-coronavirus-task-force-briefing https://www.c-span.org/video/?471458-1/president-trump-coron...
  - Mountain_Skies 6y ago
    So as the commenter said, a mischaracterization.
    - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
      A slight mischaracterization (doctors should do it, instead of people should do it themselves), and the original does not make Trump look any better. Edit: Looking again, OP did not misrepresent Trump's comment at all. Trump did clearly recommend that doctors try injecting disinfectants (including bleach) into patients.

varispeed 6y ago

Facebook is a private platform, so they should be able to censor whatever they want as long as it is not discriminatory against protected characteristics.

annadane 6y ago
Good god am I fucking sick and tired of the 'they're a private platform' argument
- henryjcee 6y ago
  comedically broke take isn't it
  - Mountain_Skies 6y ago
    Especially since eventually the winds will change, as they always do, and the "but it's a private company" crowd will find little argument against these same companies as they press the censoring boot against their necks. Creating a monster just ends up with that monster running out of control destroying everyone but they naively believe they'll always have it on a tight leash.
- dtauzell 6y ago
  Should be allowed to censor but we should still discuss if each particular instance is a good idea or not.
- caseyscottmckay 6y ago
  What is a solution? Facebook is a private company, so they can do business as they please within the confines of applicable laws and regulations. Those laws and regulations say they can censor as they please on their platform. Should we enact laws forcing private platforms to give everyone a voice?
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    Perhaps. It's definitely a conversation worth having, given the advancements in public speech through social media. There is no reason to believe that 200-year-old laws should be the end of the conversation.

cabirum 6y ago

People should start thinking twice before using US-controlled platforms/services/anything.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
It is unfortunate, but US shot itself in the foot by proving that it is not willing to be a neutral third party, which it was perceived as in the 90s.
- seoaeu 6y ago
  There's a balance though. You might have more power if you're perceived as neutral, but actually using power is inherently non-neutral
- thinkingemote 6y ago
  They (social media companies) were given an ultimatum: censor or be broken up. It's almost explicit in the Congress/Senate hearings.
  - geoduck14 6y ago
    Do you have a source? I really want to read up on this.
- ativzzz 6y ago
  The US hasn't been a neutral third party in any worldwide matter since WW1. The U.S's foreign policy is aggressively selfish (which is good for US citizens)
  - sthnblllII 6y ago
    I agree with everything but the last part. Invading Iraq got 6,000 Americans killed and did nothing to help US citizens outside of a corrupt few.
    - 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dirtyid 6y ago

Has the panel of experts on censoring political leaders convened yet or is FB is doing bans on whims until then.

pumaontheprowl 6y ago

A lot of this is starting to remind me of the way Galileo and Darwin were treated for announcing their breakthroughs. I know nothing about this drug Maduro is touting, but I can't help worrying that one of these days somebody is going to find an actual cure and the world will never know about it because big social media companies exile them for wrongthink.

dannyw 6y ago
You don't announce the discovery of a miracle cure via social media, you announce it via clinical trial papers.
- capableweb 6y ago
  You're just exemplifying the point. Who says you have to announce something a specific way first time? Back in the days it would be "you can't just publish trial papers, it has to go through the church"
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    > Who says you have to announce something a specific way first time? Technically, at our current World state, government regulations say that. And yeah, you have to have the correct credentials and submit your paper to the correct institutions. Superficially, the system is architectured exactly like the one you are complaining, while in a deeper level every component works in a completely different way. What in practice means that it right now works quite well (could improve, but it works), but it's just a series of isolated institution failings (instead of a full system failure) away from becoming like the other. So, well, keep those institutions in check, but unless somebody comes up with a better system design, there's little point on complaining about it.
    - nradov 6y ago
      Which government regulations are those? Could you please provide a CFR citation?

alexwennerberg 6y ago

At least he still has his Mastodon account https://mastodon.social/@Nicolas_Maduro https://mastodon.social/@Nicolas_Maduro

lucian1900 6y ago

I don’t think you can really compete right-wing leaders beholden to private industry like Bolsonaro & Trump to left-wing anti-imperialist leaders that advocate for workers like Maduro.

Der_Einzige 6y ago
Maduro is a left-wing anti-imperalist in name only. Don't buy the propaganda that they release about how great he is. Venezuela wouldn't be a failed state if he were even half as corrupt as he is. Left wing politics in south america is used as a shibboleth. It's smoke and mirrors - not genuine anti-imperalism.
- lucian1900 6y ago
  Better to blindly repeat CIA propaganda instead?
alkonaut 6y ago
What flag an authoritarian claims he’a waving isn’t very interesting. If you come to power by pointing at an enemy of “imperialism and capitalism” or “migrants and socialism” makes no difference. Authoritarian regimes are all the same.
- lucian1900 6y ago
  Who convinced you Maduro is “authoritarian”? I find that more interesting to explore.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Maduro convinced me, that's who. Specifically, Maduro's behavior in office for the last N years, and even more specifically, his behavior toward opposition parties. (Imagine Trump having Biden arrested in April 2020 on some transparently fake charges, so that Biden can't conduct a campaign. Trump wins the 2020 election, though there were "irregularities" in the vote. Then he dissolves Congress. Then in 2023, Trump arrests whoever the leading Democrat candidate is. Would that be authoritarian? I would say, absolutely yes.) I think it's more interesting to ask, who convinced you that Maduro is not authoritarian? And, what possible evidence would change your mind?

tmux314 6y ago

Facebook is acting on behalf of the US's long-term, bipartisan effort to undermine any Latin American government that doesn't grant its corporations access to that nation's resources. More specifically, the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations have undermined the Venezuelan government in many ways, including supporting coup attempts.[1] I'm not arguing that I support what Maduro said. He has an awful record as a leader. I'm arguing that this is the natural result of social media censorship. It's censorship by the US government by proxy. Here is a simple test to see if the above statement is true: would Facebook censor a world leader as swiftly and as severely if this were a leader of an allied state, or even a leader within our own government? [1] https://theintercept.com/2020/05/09/venezuela-coup-regime-change/ https://theintercept.com/2020/05/09/venezuela-coup-regime-ch...

dukeofdoom 6y ago

Say you are successful tech Billionaire. Watching your other billionaire friend's hubris get the better of him, and decide to take up flying only to crash into the ground. You go through some phase of self reflection, and realize you won't live forever, and so decide you can make the world a better place. You consult some self help books, listen to some new age mysticism, and read some exciting woke ideas about gender and critical theory. You are now ready to do "good". You fund every fringe woke charity, you pay forward for the right candidates. But as hard as you try, there are still these every day common folk, simple minded kind, that don't agree with all the goodness you are trying to foist onto the world. They make rude comments in online forums, doubt your every move, and they even have candidates that plays up to their ignorance. You seeth with disgust, and a bit of despair. Finally you decide the best way forward, is to not to give these people a platform to speak their simple minds. So you censor the internet, kick of their political leaders, and decide that in order for the world to be a better place, you must control the narrative. To win, you must control their simple minds. Its you and your allies that must write the truth of what the simple minded folk should think.

TulliusCicero 6y ago
A shallowly cynical take, if I've ever seen one. What comments like this do their best to ignore, is that many people, perhaps most, agree that platforms bear some responsibility for managing misinformation and the like. But arguing that point requires targeting popular will, instead of an unpopular rich dude. Much easier to demonize someone few people like, than debate a position held by many in earnest.
- umvi 6y ago
  I would argue many people (if not most) don't want platforms to be arbiters of truth. Because it's very hard to arbitrate truth in an unbiased manner. And more often than not truth arbiters eventually fall into the trap of promoting their own agendas.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    I would argue that people don't want the platforms to adjudicate THEIR views and THEIR side. They are fine with the other side getting the shaft. The woke, mainstream media and Democrats, the groups that are succeeding in pushing Twitter and Facebook and social media to increase censorship are doing it because it's advantageous to them because either their political opponents are being suppressed, or, as is the case with NY Times and other mainstream outlets, it leads to financial advantages (more views, more clicks, therefore more money). It's also dismaying that even those on the left (as few as they are) that are against this kind of censorship, are against it because it could be used against them in the future (and it will) ... and not because it's the moral and ethical thing to let your political opponents have a platform to make their case.

Lazare 6y ago

Conventional wisdom in the US is that Maduro is a ruthless, violent dictator, who has suppressed opposition, smuggled drugs, funded terrorism, violated human rights, etc. But that doesn't get you kicked off Facebook. Facebook and Twitter happily provide platforms to violent, human rights abusing regimes. ...but recommend one snake oil cure for Covid-19, and suddenly the hammer drops, I guess? Interesting priorities.

Sebb767 6y ago
> But recommend a snake oil cure for Covid-19, and you'll be in real trouble. Except if you're in a position to get them in trouble. Remember that Trump (mostly) got away with this while in office.
mountainb 6y ago
Don't expect consistency: they just do whatever they think other people want them to do. You're expecting a higher level of thought than is really present. Their 'moral' guidepost is just whatever the blob of upper middle class fashionable opinion is.
- nradov 6y ago
  Or rather they do whatever seems least likely to upset their major advertising customers. And that's not a bad thing: they have a business to run.
agumonkey 6y ago
First issues are fully political, the oil thing is mostly medical, it's less sensitive.
alkonaut 6y ago
I can kind of see the difference possibly being that Politics is slow moving. Journalists will call out bad behavior and other journalists will call out bad journalism. With some events - such as the pandemic, or the aftermath of the US election, information doesn’t have time to pass through the normal cycle. The damage is already done if a lie gets viral the wrong way. It’s better to suppress one truth and one lie (overreact) then. The key differentiator isn’t “how bad is this” but “how damaging is it if this information reaches X million people in 48 hours?”.

llaolleh 6y ago

I worry about this kind of censorship. There is no guarantee that the WHO is right either. Remember that the entire group of doctors thought blood letting was a good idea. How can we be sure that modern science doesn't have significant gaps in understanding either? Remember how the majority thought the housing market was too big to crash? I'd much prefer no censorship and let people decide for themselves. What we should be doing is trying to raise everyone's critical thinking game.

abhinav22 6y ago
> I'd much prefer no censorship and let people decide for themselves. What we should be doing is trying to raise everyone's critical thinking game. Indeed, raising everyone’s critical abilities is a great idea. Hopefully it gets done
sofixa 6y ago
> What we should be doing is trying to raise everyone's critical thinking game How do you propose we do that, and what do you propose while waiting for the day where that's the case? The proliferation of Q lunatics and anti-vaxxers shows that we're not really there and there are real-world deadly consequences to "letting people decide for themselves". When it comes to public health, most people can't decide for themselves because they lack the medical background needed to understand the science and decide.
- alacombe 6y ago
  > How do you propose we do that, [...] ? Stop lying to them.
  - sofixa 6y ago
    Good, let's try to convince anti-vaxxers, Q people, Covid-deniers and what not of that, it will surely work! Of course it won't, because people tend to listen to other people due to a variety of reasons ( personal charisma, luck, circumstances, etc.). We wouldn't have cults and science deniers otherwise.

danaos 6y ago

I guess they complied [1] [1] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1375543592018657285 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1375543592018657285

olivermarks 6y ago

It's a disgrace that the USA, founded on a constitution that defends free speech, has globalist private companies operating out of the USA gagging opinions and dissent while blatantly amplifying factions and ideas it is aligned with. They have every right as a S230 regulated company to do this, but we have no other free speech places to go as alternative services are closed down. We are going to see Trump create a parallel social media universe platform shortly that will be a disaster for unity, beliefs and the credibility of what's left of the 'corporate entertainment media' as Tulsi Gabbard calls the oligarch owned omnipotent corporate 'news 'channels.

Izkata 6y ago

Carvativir is the same as (according to Wikipedia) or derived from (according to other sites) carvacrol. From this, it took me five minutes to find evidence that we should actually investigate this and can't just dismiss Maduro as wrong: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3768712/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3768712/ > Carvacrol alone exhibited high antiviral activity against RV with a SI of 33, but it was less efficient than the oil for the other viruses. Thus, Mexican oregano oil and its main component, carvacrol, are able to inhibit different human and animal viruses in vitro. Specifically, the antiviral effects of Mexican oregano oil on ACVR-HHV-1 and HRSV and of carvacrol on RV justify more detailed studies. Even just on Wikipedia, it mentions apparently well-known antimicrobial effects, which sounds like it may help with secondary pneumonia caused by COVID (so even putting aside the possibility of antiviral effects, it may help reduce some symptoms): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carvacrol#Toxicology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carvacrol#Toxicology

shpongled 6y ago
Killing viruses or bacteria in vitro is a vastly different thing than killing them in vivo. Also, if you want to cite some evidence, Braz J Microbiol might not be the best source. https://xkcd.com/1217/ https://xkcd.com/1217/
- Izkata 6y ago
  > Killing viruses or bacteria in vitro is a vastly different thing than killing them in vivo. > https://xkcd.com/1217/ https://xkcd.com/1217/ Carvacrol is a component of oregano oil, a common herbal supplement. This is one case where the XKCD strip is clearly wrong. > Also, if you want to cite some evidence, Braz J Microbiol might not be the best source. Is the Brazilian Journal of Microbiology not trusted or something?
  - shpongled 6y ago
    > This is one case where the XKCD strip is clearly wrong. How so? > Is the Brazilian Journal of Microbiology not trusted or something? Well it's not Nature, that's for sure

andred14 6y ago

The reality is FB has been bought by the pharma/vackz companies and deletes anything contrary to this program however factual it may be. How about FB worry about itself and we adults will determine what is right and wrong for ourselves? As it always has been? FB has "moderated" 100% facts and science that I have posted in the past just because the information does not suit the current narrative of fear and destruction. This is wrong and should motivate you to find other platforms.

hetspookjee 6y ago

Luckily we soon have Facebook's Supreme Court deciding whom to censor or not. https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/inside-the-making-of-facebooks-supreme-court https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/inside-t...

StreamBright 6y ago

The beginning of the next era of humanity. Corporations wield more power than governments.

chmod600 6y ago

Can we just all agree that censorship is bad? All this "nuance" about censorship vs deplatforming, or worries about misinformation, just sound like rationalizing something we know is wrong. This power is always abused. It's always just another way to say "sure, I believe in democracy, so long as I get to 'educate' you and prevent you from hearing anything that might change your mind about who to vote for". Religion is "misinformation". How long before that is censored as well? Fundamentally, people scared of misinformation are people scared of diversity. They believe there's one right answer and that everyone must agree.

postmeta 6y ago
I agree that censorship of science is bad. Giving powerful people a free megaphone for their opinions and anecdotal bs is also bad. Nobody believes there is one right answer, but amplifying stupid is a recipe for disaster.
- chmod600 6y ago
  It's not a megaphone. A megaphone forces people to hear whether they want to or not, and drowns out others trying to speak. A facebook page does neither.
- russellendicott 6y ago
  Science is merely a tool. It's conclusions still must be interpreted and translated to fit in to a human shaped system. There are almost as many interpretations of the conclusions of science as there are interpretations of religious texts. Science shows us that eating too much leads to heart disease and shortens your lifespan. What conclusions do we draw from this? An extra 15 years of life is worth 90 years of a bland diet? Different people draw different conclusions. My point is that science alone is not a comprehensive guide to how a life should be lived. It requires some extra interpretation. In this Maduro COVID miracle cure situation it's obviously a ridiculous claim and could mislead thousands of people into taking a placebo pill and pulling their masks off and endangering the lives of other people. Facebook truly believes that they are right in their conclusion that Maduro's interpretation of "science" will lead to people getting hurt. They have a moral obligation to stop it lest someone accuse them of having blood on their hands. However, Maduro being in power has surely caused many thousands of people to die from political violence and starvation. What if stopping him from exposing himself as a fool and a liar has extended his position of power for another year? Psychology is also a science. The psychology behind why people would rally harder around a censored dictator. Which interpretation of science would kill more people? The answers aren't always clear.

drummer 6y ago

Because the WHO is the only source of truth...

throw7 6y ago

Ministries of Truth.

sailtronus 6y ago

The programmers from bigtechs are a shame to the country, giving backdoors to NSA/FBI so they can rule the country on they distorced notion of reality and conduct. But, what I can say, Internet has became the FBI, theres no unlogged machinne, no unlogged connection, no unlogged download, no unlogged transfer, all scripts... With all the OS metadata that you take, you spy, steal and take royalties on users inventions and patents, you buried America to a mass surveilence Big brother, planted home terrorism. And bring the entire world they corruption circles, dumping all countries liders phones, computers, lines, signal and wires, manipulating the midia, crashing planes, causing death, rage and lies, a perfect psicopath FBI world. The intelligence hacking forks agents, under russian/china flags, mocking in to their oun citizens, instiganting violence and supporting racism. The FBI brilliant Bitcoin invention to profit on hackers arrests. The linux intrusions with back doors into theur basis, direct in the foudantions. And all this, all, is in your house, my friend, with Aws, Face, Micros, Yout, goog, inst, tesl... you do nothing plugged, without an alarm setted, and if they want, they get you. You collaborate with the end of criativity and fund the shitcorruptnet. Tks

fukmbas 6y ago

So sick of the "buT wE sHoULD T ceNSOr" crowd. It's time we stop providing these idiots a platform.