Interesting discussion about a Cleveland Clinic study.
quote:
Numerous studies have found that additional COVID-19 shots are generally associated with extra protection against the coronavirus. Many people on social media, however, have shared a preliminary finding from a Cleveland Clinic study and misrepresented it as proving that getting more doses increases a person’s risk of infection.
-------------------------------- We are all visitors to this time, this place. We are just passing through. Our purpose here is to observe, to learn, to grow, to love… and then we return home. - Australian Aboriginal proverb
Bazootiehead-in-training
Posts: 37961 | Location: Somewhere in the middle | Registered: 19 January 2010
Originally posted by wtg: Interesting discussion about a Cleveland Clinic study.
quote:
Numerous studies have found that additional COVID-19 shots are generally associated with extra protection against the coronavirus. Many people on social media, however, have shared a preliminary finding from a Cleveland Clinic study and misrepresented it as proving that getting more doses increases a person’s risk of infection.
I don’t have any idea what you mean about the First Amendment. The First Amendment only applies to governmental action. Neither Twitter nor Facebook, nor any private actor for that matter, is a governmental actor. Their actions may be (pick your favorite negative adjective), but they are are not covered by the First Amendment. I am unaware of any governmental action restricting speech about COVID.
As far as vaccines go, now that we are out of the pandemic phase, I think you should be able to do as you wish. Your actions can no longer place those around you (except perhaps those who are immuno-compromised) at mortal risk.
But, if there’s a vaccine available and if medical professionals I trust say that the vaccine does more good than harm, I’ll be getting it.
Originally posted by QuirtEvans: I don’t have any idea what you mean about the First Amendment. The First Amendment only applies to governmental action. Neither Twitter nor Facebook, nor any private actor for that matter, is a governmental actor. Their actions may be (pick your favorite negative adjective), but they are are not covered by the First Amendment. I am unaware of any governmental action restricting speech about COVID.
Governmental actor involved in censorship about COVID--
And exactly what, if anything, has that Board censored? Combating misinformation could involve disseminating accurate information. For example, information than mRNA vaccines work and are safe.
Are there specific censorship decisions that occurred? If there were, I’d imagine the ACLU would be all over it.
I’ve been waiting for a customer in India to propose dates for me to go teach a class there. I’ve been putting off getting another booster until I have a date set. I’ve been waiting since February. I’ll probably just go get one. I hope it will protect me against whatever variants are floating around when I finally hit the road.
I proved my point. It's not my fault if you can't bring yourself to accept it.
Do you think the social media companies you yourself mentioned were doing what this Board was promoting a) as a coincidence and b) out of the goodness of their hearts?
Originally posted by Daniel: Thank you for your comment.
You too are welcome to answer my second paragraph.
You’re asking for proof of a corporate entity’s intent. Your guess about that is as good as … your guess about that.
However, you haven’t demonstrated that the board censored anything itself, so you’re left asserting that the board leaned on a social media platform to do the board’s censorship for it, even though you lack any evidence that pressure was put on multi-billion dollar companies sufficient to get them to do the board’s dirty work. Or that the board had sufficient power to exert that sort of pressure.
