When my government tried to censor Iran's PressTV website I was drawn to it to find out why they censored it. That is how I found out about Daniel Hale.
Say you have a meeting. You can censor the minutes for publication. That makes people want to know what’s in them.
But you can also withhold minutes being written on a certain topic. That generally arouses less interest.
@shavixmirsaid It depends how censorship is implimented.
Say you have a meeting. You can censor the minutes for publication. That makes people want to know what’s in them.
But you can also withhold minutes being written on a certain topic. That generally arouses less interest.
The best way to convince people something is not true is to prove it wrong.
Censorship is resorted to when they cannot prove something wrong.
Censorship is the result of a failure to prove something wrong.
@Metal-Brain And for you, that means the ONLY thing on your mind is BIDEN LOST because of MASSIVE voter fraud, even though that Ninja IDIOT said there was no evidence of fraud AND there were a few HUNDRED votes less for Trump and near 100 more for Biden.
All that proves is they were incompetent because NONE of them had any experience in vote count, handling voter machines and the like.
Now as a result Arizona has to replace ALL those voter machines because they were handled by non vetted people.
But of course you will never stoop to answer THOSE charges.
@sonhousesaid @Metal-Brain And for you, that means the ONLY thing on your mind is BIDEN LOST because of MASSIVE voter fraud, even though that Ninja IDIOT said there was no evidence of fraud AND there were a few HUNDRED votes less for Trump and near 100 more for Biden.
All that proves is they were incompetent because NONE of them had any experience in vote count, handling voter machine ...[text shortened]... ey were handled by non vetted people.
But of course you will never stoop to answer THOSE charges.
When my government tried to censor I ...[text shortened]... bsite I was drawn to it to find out why they censored it. That is how I found out about Daniel Hale.
So it is okay for your distributing lies?
That is waht the case is about.
Since you distribute lies frequently (SARS-Cov2 has not been isolated anyone?)you want to be entitled to do that probbaly. But it is hurting people massively. Especially those who are unable to understand how science works (this could include you)
@ponderablesaid So it is okay for your distributing lies?
That is waht the case is about.
Since you distribute lies frequently (SARS-Cov2 has not been isolated anyone?)you want to be entitled to do that probbaly. But it is hurting people massively. Especially those who are unable to understand how science works (this could include you)
What lies?
You cannot prove I lied about anything.
Stop pulling a suzi. Are you trying to fool yourself or others?
@metal-brainsaid The best way to convince people something is not true is to prove it wrong.
Censorship is resorted to when they cannot prove something wrong.
Censorship is the result of a failure to prove something wrong.
Or maybe someone just wants to turn off the dog whistle.
@metal-brainsaid The best way to convince people something is not true is to prove it wrong.
Censorship is resorted to when they cannot prove something wrong.
Censorship is the result of a failure to prove something wrong.
No. Not at all.
There are multiple reasons for censorship.
A very common reason is privacy, for example. Documents which are released to the public on individual demand have other people’s names, addresses, etc. censored.
Another reason is that some information (say in a meeting) can’t be reasonably interpretted without context. So, the agenda point is consored from the minutes until a communication can be written which also explains context.
@metal-brainsaid The best way to convince people something is not true is to prove it wrong.
Censorship is resorted to when they cannot prove something wrong.
Censorship is the result of a failure to prove something wrong.
No censorship when applied correctly is there for the public good. Something becomes disinformation worthy of censorship when it becomes potentially harmful.
Anti vaxxer propaganda, covid denial, The big lie; all have been effectively proven false and harmful so are fair game for censorship.
The Daniel Hale case, as with the plight of most whistleblowers is a much greyer area and the case for punishing or censoring these people is far from proven.
@shavixmirsaid No. Not at all.
There are multiple reasons for censorship.
A very common reason is privacy, for example. Documents which are released to the public on individual demand have other people’s names, addresses, etc. censored.
Another reason is that some information (say in a meeting) can’t be reasonably interpretted without context. So, the agenda point is consored from the minutes until a communication can be written which also explains context.
"Another reason is that some information (say in a meeting) can’t be reasonably interpretted without context"
Then correct the context.
You have a problem with the truth, not misinformation. All of your heroes are spreading misinformation. Fauci, Biden and many others who should be in prison for lying and putting lives at risk.
Why don't you support censoring Fauci? You know he lies all the time. Don't deny it. You know I proved it several times.
@kevcvs57said No censorship when applied correctly is there for the public good. Something becomes disinformation worthy of censorship when it becomes potentially harmful.
Anti vaxxer propaganda, covid denial, The big lie; all have been effectively proven false and harmful so are fair game for censorship.
The Daniel Hale case, as with the plight of most whistleblowers is a much greyer area and the case for punishing or censoring these people is far from proven.
Fauci's multiple lies are harmful.
Do you support censoring him?
@metal-brainsaid Fauci's multiple lies are harmful.
Do you support censoring him?
No I’d rather expose public servants when they lie or make mistakes. Part of his job is to give us accurate science based information, if he intentionally veers off that road he should have his licence revoked and he should not be a public spokesperson any longer if he does not have a good enough reason for doing so.
If your talking about the mask thing then it was explained by him sincerely believing that due to a shortage of masks for health workers on the front line then the general public buying up precious stocks would be disadvantageous to the general public health.
@kevcvs57said No I’d rather expose public servants when they lie or make mistakes. Part of his job is to give us accurate science based information, if he intentionally veers off that road he should have his licence revoked and he should not be a public spokesperson any longer if he does not have a good enough reason for doing so.
If your talking about the mask thing then it was explaine ...[text shortened]... the general public buying up precious stocks would be disadvantageous to the general public health.
"Part of his job is to give us accurate science based information, if he intentionally veers off that road he should have his licence revoked and he should not be a public spokesperson any longer if he does not have a good enough reason for doing so."
He did just that and several times. He admitted he intentionally lied. He was even asked if he was sure because people are relying on him to give life saving advice and he lied anyway according to his admission. Personally I think he lied the second time, but if you accept he told the truth about which time he lied he was asked if he was sure.
I don't believe wearing masks saves lives, but if I am wrong Fauci killed people to protect health workers (a minority of the population) by denying the general population masks. Is that a good reason?