this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
40 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

23 readers
2 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
 

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 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's not what I said though. They spread a lie by saying it was only for horses, and were never silenced or corrected. They were allowed to lie. "Rules for thee, but not rules for me."

[–] snipgan@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Some people were actually buying the horse variant of it...

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

I'd like a verified source showing this was actually occurring at any sort of large scale. Assuming you have it, does that make it okay to suggest Ivermectin (the drug) is only for horses like the media did? Is lying okay when it's done to save lives? I'm just curious.

[–] snipgan@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] C4RP3_N0CT3M@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That story uses only anecdotal, non-scientifically recorded data. 50 - 60 calls a day simply to ask about it, and one or two cases of people actually using it. This same story claims people were drinking hand sanitizer, I guess we need to start lying about that as well.

[–] snipgan@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Poison centers are still responding to events related to COVID-19," said Julie Weber, president of the American Association of Poison Control Centers and director of the Missouri Poison Center. "On average, we are getting over 40 to 50 calls per day in addition to what we would normally get pre-pandemic."

Unless you are saying the president of Missouri's Poison Center is lying, then this is still substantive.

And more than what you have provided so far. Can't claim it is lie either without evidence.

[–] C4RP3_N0CT3M@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They literally don't provide any data. It could be one call and they'd say they're "still responding."

[–] snipgan@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] C4RP3_N0CT3M@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They don't even say the 50-60 calls they are getting are just for Ivermectin, just that they're related to COVID. Why do you think they worded it that way, to be misleading maybe?

[–] snipgan@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You didn't read the article did you?

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

You're being extremely disrespectful. I did in fact read the article, but it's clearly a biased article with no actual measured data.

[–] snipgan@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No you didn’t. It talks about it.

Making another claim about bias won’t help you. And still leaves the rest of what I said.

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

I'll not be discussing with you further. Why would I? You are literally just repeating that I didn't read the article, and have made no claims against what I said. I think we should censor YOU since I know I read it but you keep claiming I didn't, which could be classified as misinformation.

[–] snipgan@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then you are admitting you are wrong and aren’t acting in good faith. The literal next section of that article mentions it.

Just repeating yourself won’t make you right. And above all else, you haven’t proven anything today.

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

Firstly, you saying I'm admitting that I'm wrong is arguing in bad faith by definition, as I never said that. Quote the part of the article you're talking about specifically, and I'll refute that, that way I'll be forced to read it. Also, ciritizing me for repeating myself is ironic considering you keep repeating yourself.

[–] snipgan@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Still not wrong