Technology

378 readers

1 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!

founded 2 years ago

Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “suppress free speech” (arstechnica.com)

submitted 1 year ago by asteroidrainfall@kbin.social to c/tech@kbin.social

85 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A federal judge yesterday ordered the Biden administration to halt a wide range of communications with social media companies, siding with Missouri and Louisiana in a lawsuit that alleges Biden and his administration violated the First Amendment by colluding with social networks "to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] C4RP3_N0CT3M@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

In a land where "lies" are suppressed, he who claims to know the truth is king. The sentiment of suppressing lies is perhaps rightous, but who determines the truth? It damn well wasn't scientists during the pandemic.

Edit: hell, even Zuck himself said he was told to censor true information.

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you actually listened to scientists during the pandemic, or read papers - you would you know that the main theme was "there is lots of stuff we don't know, or are unsure about". Given that, however - there needed to be public health guidance based on the best evidence and probablitlities at the time.

On the other side, there were people spouting, unsourced, unsupported, nonsensical bullshit that would directly contribute to people killing themselves.

[–] C4RP3_N0CT3M@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They were literally just making up arbitrary rules that had nothing to do with science, and saying it WAS based on science. Meanwhile the then director of the CDC said we should investigate if the virus came from a lab as well as if it had a natural origin, and was forcibly sidelined as a result. Don't even try to say they were following the science.

Edit: Also, if you're not even sure what the truth is, what gives you the right to silence people that have a different opinion? It makes no sense. Where is the authority to silence coming from?

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They were literally just making up arbitrary rules that had nothing to do with science, and saying it WAS based on science.

Give me a solid example of the "they" in this case, the rule in question and the date that that the rule was imposed.

Meanwhile the then director of the CDC said we should investigate if the virus came from a lab as well as if it had a natural origin, and was forced to resign as a result.

Are you talking about Rochelle Walensky? If so, there are many possible reasons why she decided to resign, but I can't find a single source saying it was because she said there should be an investigation into Covid's source.

Edit: Ah, you are talking about Robert R. Redfield. So from what I can tell, his downfall was that he wasn't being scientific - he stated that the he thought it most likely that it was a lab-leak, and that certainly didn't win him any friends because the assertions he made weren't well supported. But was he "forced to resign because of that" - looking at the coverage from back then, he was under fire for multiple reasons, not just that. I don't think we can say that was the sole or even main reason for his departure.

Also, if you're not even sure what the truth is, what gives you the right to silence people that have a different opinion? It makes no sense. Where is the authority to silence coming from?

Because the process of science (especially in fast-moving situations) is all about producing increasingly accurate pictures of the truth. Scientists are highly resistant to characterising something as the truth - there often more to explore. You can absolutely have scientists with different opinions - but they will be looking at evidence, not just making stuff up.

You ask

What gives you the right to silence people that have a different opinion? It makes no sense. Where is the authority to silence coming from?

The silencing isn't being done by scientists, its being done by public health officials and that is somewhat different,. Public health officials take the best evidence as presented by scientific consensus and have to create messaging designed to minimise the number of deaths and maximise wellbeing. If the scientific consensus is that vaccination is safe and effective - that messaging will save millions of lives. Some Russian bot factory amplying a ludicrous idea like "the vaccines will alter your DNA or make you infertile" is specifically designed to kill people.

[–] C4RP3_N0CT3M@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I wholeheartedly disagree, and that's okay. What I think we CAN agree on is that leading experts (like the director of the CDC) shouldn't be silenced for suggesting we investigate the possibility of a lab leak, which is actually what happened.

Edit: Here's the example you asked for:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/graisondangor/2021/09/19/cdcs-six-foot-social-distancing-rule-was-arbitrary-says-former-fda-commissioner/