3 ms·

The internet : sees thoughts challenging facts Someone : “Sucks to see how many people take everything they see online for face value,” one Proven employee wro

The internet : sees thoughts challenging facts Someone : “Sucks to see how many people take everything they see online for face value,” one Proven employee wrote. “Sounds like a bunch of liberals lol.” The company : Proven also had its lawyers file “multiple” DMCA takedown notices against the McNally video, claiming that its use of Proven’s promo video was copyright infringement. When did facts and enlightenment started to be for "liberals lol" ? Freedom of speech based on facts should be universal.

mothballed 1y ago
>Freedom of speech based on facts should be universal. To be fair that's not what we have in USA. For instance, a nurse who never even signed a private privacy agreement with anyone (unusual, but could happen) could violate HIPAA if they factually tell a patient's spouse the patient is being treated for AIDS and they ought to watch out.
- alwa 1y ago
  Yes, they could and most definitely would be. The case you describe is one of the reasons it’s that way. For what exactly would this fly-by-night nurse be telling me to “watch out,” in relation to my partner who’s living with and being treated for HIV? One hopes this nurse, being medically trained and apparently working with vulnerable populations, understands the efficacy of the modern HIV therapies the patient is receiving. That, when managed, HIV is not transmissible by conventional marital means [0]; and that, until recently at least [also 0], concerted public health efforts have meant that most anyone who seeks medical attention ends up on those modern therapies. That said, I hope said nurse would catch me in a charitable mood rather than a litigious one. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/global-hiv-tb/php/our-approach/undetectable-untransmittable.html https://www.cdc.gov/global-hiv-tb/php/our-approach/undetecta...
  - mothballed 1y ago
    This is an entirely different argument than the fact at hand, which is making the factual statement is illegal. You're just explaining why stating the fact should be illegal. >[0] https://www.cdc.gov/global-hiv-tb/php/our-approach/undetecta https://www.cdc.gov/global-hiv-tb/php/our-approach/undetecta... I said AIDS, not HIV. I am no AIDS expert but I would be shocked if a large portion of people AIDS had no detectable viral load, while people with HIV commonly do not have detectable one. Wouldn't people with no detectable viral load generally not being exhibiting AIDS?
    - alwa 1y ago
      In that case—and in re-reading the comment you were responding to—I think I’m agreeing with you and that I should have read more carefully before getting my dander up :) It sounds like we’re agreeing that you’ve given a good example of why it both is and should be that way. And that, in US jurisprudence anyway, speech tends to be allowed unless there’s a broader social interest that’s served by protecting the specific categories of facts in question. With the slight caveat that I’m not sure that “should watch out” is a fact, it sounds like an opinion to me (and one that’s potentially unsupported by the facts). In fact, don’t people governed by HIPAA still have a duty to report situations of actual or likely physical harm—for example if a minor presents with signs consistent with abuse [0]? Or even, in your example, if the provider became aware that the HIV-positive patient, out of malice or negligence, were declining treatment, exhibiting substantial viral load, and asserting that they intended to continue with behaviors that put the partner at risk? [0] https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/faq/2098/if-doctor-believes-patient-might-hurt-himself-or-herself-or-someone-else-it-duty-provider.html https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/faq/2098/if-doct...
- nradov 1y ago
  How could that happen exactly? In what circumstances could a nurse end up working for (or even volunteering for) a HIPAA covered entity without signing a privacy agreement?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - kstrauser 1y ago
    And the privacy agreement isn’t required anyway. If you’re a doctor, and you treat your neighbor, you’re bound by HIPAA laws that cover the arrangement. All a privacy agreement really does is give the clinic a hope of being found not liable in a lawsuit or government action: “see, we have it in writing that the nurse knew this was illegal! Blame them, not us.” Even without the agreement, the practioner is still legally obligated to obey HIPAA. And as a side note: sue the hell out of the hypothetical nurse spilling the beans on a hypothetical AIDE patient. Why? Because if you don’t, then other people who suspect they might have HIV are going to avoid going to the doctor, resulting in more deaths for them and their lovers.
    - mothballed 1y ago
      I'm not sure if it's required, but it's a common retort used to argue why someone thinks HIPAA is a private contract law rather than regulation of factual speech, so I prefer to just nip that scenario in the bud from the get go. In any case I wasn't arguing for or against regulating factual speech. Only pointing out that it is done in the USA. This seems to get peoples feathers real ruffled, for whatever reason.
      - kstrauser 1y ago
        Hah! Ok, fair, I could see that. There are sooooo many misunderstandings about HIPAA that make me cringe every time I hear them. “I can’t tell you if I’m sick. HIPPA!” “It’s illegal for you to ask me if I’m vaccinated. HIPPA!” “You can’t bill me for this. HIPPA!” It’s like the medical version of a sovereign citizen legal theory, where it simultaneously applies to everything and nothing, depending on what’s most convenient at the moment.
skopje 1y ago
They're all a tough guys act. It's the type. Many American men love playing soldiers. What is Liquid Death? It's water LOL. See?
- viridian 1y ago
  FWIW in my experience is less the monster energy / black rifle coffee audience, it's actually the red bull / white claw audience. It still feels wrong to me, but that's how it is.
- abustamam 1y ago
  I like liquid death because their water is delicious and not high in sugar. I usually drink a sparkling water with dinner and I definitely prefer liquid death over la croix. They are technically different products though. That their marketing is so edgy is just fun. I don't take it seriously, and it doesn't seem like they do either. But Proven is definitely full of toxic masculinity internet tough guys.
  - skopje 1y ago
    "water is delicious" That is strange. Water is water. Delicious water. Expensive water. Filter?
    - abustamam 1y ago
      Have you not had liquid death? It's flavored sparkling water. Flavor can be delicious.
      - skopje 1y ago
        No, but I flavored water != water.
        abustamam 11mo ago
        Why not? If the flavor essence is non-nutritive (which is not the case for liquid death, which has agave), it still hydrates the same. And let's be real. Most people probably aren't drinking enough water. If flavored water gets them to consume more water and less sugary soda then I consider it an absolute win.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
yojo 1y ago
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."[0] 0: https://youtu.be/IJ-a2KeyCAY?si=cIcawm3U5-55nI2D&t=252 https://youtu.be/IJ-a2KeyCAY?si=cIcawm3U5-55nI2D&t=252
- hinata08 1y ago
  I just saw grokpedia results, which include a gay-free description of gay novels (Banana Fish) and forged or curated accounts of war on Iraq, Thatcher and Duterte. So yeah, reality is liberal nowadays
zahlman 1y ago
> When did facts and enlightenment started to be for "liberals lol" ? It didn't. That's one employee of the company, who has a clear bias in the matter, being ridiculous. It has nothing to do with liberal ideology, nor critique of liberal ideology, nor whatever sort of person that employee thinks should be considered a "liberal", nor their ideology. It's only the employee who even suggests that, and probably not even seriously.

mothballed 1y ago

>Freedom of speech based on facts should be universal. To be fair that's not what we have in USA. For instance, a nurse who never even signed a private privacy agreement with anyone (unusual, but could happen) could violate HIPAA if they factually tell a patient's spouse the patient is being treated for AIDS and they ought to watch out.

alwa 1y ago
Yes, they could and most definitely would be. The case you describe is one of the reasons it’s that way. For what exactly would this fly-by-night nurse be telling me to “watch out,” in relation to my partner who’s living with and being treated for HIV? One hopes this nurse, being medically trained and apparently working with vulnerable populations, understands the efficacy of the modern HIV therapies the patient is receiving. That, when managed, HIV is not transmissible by conventional marital means [0]; and that, until recently at least [also 0], concerted public health efforts have meant that most anyone who seeks medical attention ends up on those modern therapies. That said, I hope said nurse would catch me in a charitable mood rather than a litigious one. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/global-hiv-tb/php/our-approach/undetectable-untransmittable.html https://www.cdc.gov/global-hiv-tb/php/our-approach/undetecta...
- mothballed 1y ago
  This is an entirely different argument than the fact at hand, which is making the factual statement is illegal. You're just explaining why stating the fact should be illegal. >[0] https://www.cdc.gov/global-hiv-tb/php/our-approach/undetecta https://www.cdc.gov/global-hiv-tb/php/our-approach/undetecta... I said AIDS, not HIV. I am no AIDS expert but I would be shocked if a large portion of people AIDS had no detectable viral load, while people with HIV commonly do not have detectable one. Wouldn't people with no detectable viral load generally not being exhibiting AIDS?
  - alwa 1y ago
    In that case—and in re-reading the comment you were responding to—I think I’m agreeing with you and that I should have read more carefully before getting my dander up :) It sounds like we’re agreeing that you’ve given a good example of why it both is and should be that way. And that, in US jurisprudence anyway, speech tends to be allowed unless there’s a broader social interest that’s served by protecting the specific categories of facts in question. With the slight caveat that I’m not sure that “should watch out” is a fact, it sounds like an opinion to me (and one that’s potentially unsupported by the facts). In fact, don’t people governed by HIPAA still have a duty to report situations of actual or likely physical harm—for example if a minor presents with signs consistent with abuse [0]? Or even, in your example, if the provider became aware that the HIV-positive patient, out of malice or negligence, were declining treatment, exhibiting substantial viral load, and asserting that they intended to continue with behaviors that put the partner at risk? [0] https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/faq/2098/if-doctor-believes-patient-might-hurt-himself-or-herself-or-someone-else-it-duty-provider.html https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/faq/2098/if-doct...
nradov 1y ago
How could that happen exactly? In what circumstances could a nurse end up working for (or even volunteering for) a HIPAA covered entity without signing a privacy agreement?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- kstrauser 1y ago
  And the privacy agreement isn’t required anyway. If you’re a doctor, and you treat your neighbor, you’re bound by HIPAA laws that cover the arrangement. All a privacy agreement really does is give the clinic a hope of being found not liable in a lawsuit or government action: “see, we have it in writing that the nurse knew this was illegal! Blame them, not us.” Even without the agreement, the practioner is still legally obligated to obey HIPAA. And as a side note: sue the hell out of the hypothetical nurse spilling the beans on a hypothetical AIDE patient. Why? Because if you don’t, then other people who suspect they might have HIV are going to avoid going to the doctor, resulting in more deaths for them and their lovers.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    I'm not sure if it's required, but it's a common retort used to argue why someone thinks HIPAA is a private contract law rather than regulation of factual speech, so I prefer to just nip that scenario in the bud from the get go. In any case I wasn't arguing for or against regulating factual speech. Only pointing out that it is done in the USA. This seems to get peoples feathers real ruffled, for whatever reason.
    - kstrauser 1y ago
      Hah! Ok, fair, I could see that. There are sooooo many misunderstandings about HIPAA that make me cringe every time I hear them. “I can’t tell you if I’m sick. HIPPA!” “It’s illegal for you to ask me if I’m vaccinated. HIPPA!” “You can’t bill me for this. HIPPA!” It’s like the medical version of a sovereign citizen legal theory, where it simultaneously applies to everything and nothing, depending on what’s most convenient at the moment.

skopje 1y ago

They're all a tough guys act. It's the type. Many American men love playing soldiers. What is Liquid Death? It's water LOL. See?

viridian 1y ago
FWIW in my experience is less the monster energy / black rifle coffee audience, it's actually the red bull / white claw audience. It still feels wrong to me, but that's how it is.
abustamam 1y ago
I like liquid death because their water is delicious and not high in sugar. I usually drink a sparkling water with dinner and I definitely prefer liquid death over la croix. They are technically different products though. That their marketing is so edgy is just fun. I don't take it seriously, and it doesn't seem like they do either. But Proven is definitely full of toxic masculinity internet tough guys.
- skopje 1y ago
  "water is delicious" That is strange. Water is water. Delicious water. Expensive water. Filter?
  - abustamam 1y ago
    Have you not had liquid death? It's flavored sparkling water. Flavor can be delicious.
    - skopje 1y ago
      No, but I flavored water != water.
      - abustamam 11mo ago
        Why not? If the flavor essence is non-nutritive (which is not the case for liquid death, which has agave), it still hydrates the same. And let's be real. Most people probably aren't drinking enough water. If flavored water gets them to consume more water and less sugary soda then I consider it an absolute win.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

yojo 1y ago

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."[0] 0: https://youtu.be/IJ-a2KeyCAY?si=cIcawm3U5-55nI2D&t=252 https://youtu.be/IJ-a2KeyCAY?si=cIcawm3U5-55nI2D&t=252

hinata08 1y ago
I just saw grokpedia results, which include a gay-free description of gay novels (Banana Fish) and forged or curated accounts of war on Iraq, Thatcher and Duterte. So yeah, reality is liberal nowadays

zahlman 1y ago

> When did facts and enlightenment started to be for "liberals lol" ? It didn't. That's one employee of the company, who has a clear bias in the matter, being ridiculous. It has nothing to do with liberal ideology, nor critique of liberal ideology, nor whatever sort of person that employee thinks should be considered a "liberal", nor their ideology. It's only the employee who even suggests that, and probably not even seriously.