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

That was the data we had at the time, yes. New data can mean new stances, and that's okay. But notice the order of operations there; new data, then new stance. Not the other way around.

[–] C4RP3_N0CT3M@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They had data showing otherwise. They were silenced. I'll keep bringing this up, but the director of the CDC at the time said there was significant evidence to investigate the lab leak theory, but was forcibly sidelined. They seem to have gotten your model backwards. This wasn't the only time it happened, but people will keep crying "sources" since they know it's now difficult to find information that was removed from journal sites, etc.

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

Uh, sources? Specifically about the forced resignation.

[–] C4RP3_N0CT3M@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] effingjoe@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You didn't read that article, did you? It doesn't support your stance.

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

The CDC director wasn't forcibly sidelined because he suggested that COVID-19 could have come from a lab?

[–] effingjoe@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not according to your link, no.

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

You've got to be kidding:

"Dr Redfield, who led the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention when the outbreak began in 2020, was an early proponent of the lab leak theory.

He told the House select subcommittee, formed by the new Republican majority in the US House of Representatives, it was "not scientifically plausible" to him that the virus had natural origins.

He claimed he was "sidelined" at the beginning of the pandemic and excluded from meetings as his views were not in line with other major scientists like Dr Fauci, the de-facto face of the US pandemic response."

[–] effingjoe@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] C4RP3_N0CT3M@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There was no evidence to rule out it either, but they did it anyway.

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

My dude, what are you doing here?

There is no evidence to support your stance that this dude was sidelined because of his views. All you have is his claim that they sidelined him for his views.

This appears to be another conspiracy theory.

Focus, man.

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

He said it himself. There was a whole panel about it which you can watch for yourself where evidence was presented. Are you suggesting he was lying?

[–] effingjoe@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Someone has to be, since we have conflicting claims.

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

Please repeat your claim, just so we're clear.

[–] effingjoe@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am not making a claim. How are you so confused?

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

If you're making no claim, then how are we disagreeing?

Edit: This suggests some sort of claim you are making:
"Someone has to be, since we have conflicting claims."

[–] effingjoe@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Please for the sake of my sanity go read the link you provided. It will clear up your befuddlement.