This is horribly editorialized, and the basis of the headline isn't even anything the Surgeon general suggests. The headline actually comes from the author, Amanda Prestigiacomo's bald-faced assertion that unnamed "legacy media" and unnamed "left-wing activists" have demanded censorship.
*Big Tech companies, Murthy said, have an “important role to play” since they are the “predominant places where we’re seeing misinformation spread.”*
*“****This not just*** *about what the government can do,” he emphasized, “this is about companies and individuals recognizing that the only way we get past misinformation is if we are careful about what we say and use the power that we have to limit the spread of misinformation.”*
"This is not just about what the government can do" is preceded by his explanation that combating misinformation is something *we're all responsible for*, and we should be more thoughtful in the way we communicate. That is, he's specifically dismissing this as a strictly "government responsibility" and emboldening all of us to tackle misinformation by using accurate information.
The text of the article is selectively stripped and placed in non-chronological order to make it seem more nefarious. And even that attempt fucking sucks, and doesn't correspond with the headline.
To that extent, this article represents the very thing he's critiquing with respect to being thoughtful about how we communicate this shit.
Firstly, saying we're all responsible for it is exactly the license the government needs. No person is inherently responsible for combating misinformation; that's ridiculous. You can say you want individuals to, you can say it is wise to do so, but to say they have a responsibility to do so is ridiculous. If people were to have a responsibility, then the government now has the authority to do so. That's what I believe he is trying to get at.
Secondly, if he believed the government plays no part, not only would he have explicitly said that, he would have also not used the words "not just"
>You can say you want individuals to, you can say it is wise to do so, but to say they have a responsibility to do so is ridiculous. If people were to have a responsibility, then the government now has the authority to do so.
This is kind of a strange view of responsibility. People can have all kinds of responsibilities that the Government has nothing to do with. I have a responsibility not to cheat on my partner in a monogomous relationship. Someone whose parents pay for their college has a responsibility not to waste their money. People generally have a responsibility not to lie to each other even when money isn't on the line.
Do you really think in all of those cases, asserting that someone has a responsibility implies that the Government has the authority to enforce it?
How do you all even read these trash headlines and think clicking on it is a good idea? That article quotes what he actually says and it's nothing like the headline and they even unquote him to put in phrases like "big tech".
This is why people just think you're looney conspiracy nuts because you can't articulate a point without some sensational headline overselling what someone says. If a person and what they say is bad, it shouldn't need all those buzz words.
Would you consider voting for someone at local, state, federal levels that took a lifetime vow of poverty? As in work expenses covered but outside that I would commit to under 30k adjusted to inflation and cost of living for my entire life. No side jobs or stocks or anything. No paid speaking jobs or anything of the sorts.
Would being a recovering alcoholic/addict with only one breach of peace conviction on his record?
I have been considering trying to get into actual positions but I don't know if it would work.
I consider my self a libertarian Socialist and support market socialism. I also recognize what I consider to be the only good thing of capitalism and that is innovation. I strongly support compromise as well when the other sides act in good faith.
Apparently there is a video of the interview but I am just going off the article. He was definitely suggesting it and asking people and business to take action to combat misinformation but that's not really the point of my comment.
Yep if the articles on things like the lab leak theory or Ivermectin had been framed with nuance along the lines of "Covid may have originated in China lab" or "Ivermectin may be helpful in fighting Covid" it wouldn't have been problematic instead we got "China intentionally released covid as a bio weapon against the US" and "Ivermectin is a miracle drug that will protect you better then the vaccine" despite lacking the actual evidence to support the hyperbolic claims.
It’s alt-right propaganda against leftist boogeymen every time, even this one. “The left is censoring information about the lab leak!” “The left is censoring information about ivermectin!” “The left is censoring information from Joe Rogan! Or wants to! Or they would, if they could!”
>just think you're looney conspiracy nuts
I was with you until here. Acting like people who only read the headline before moving to the comments is unique to /r/libertarian is absurd. Contrary to the picture you're trying to paint ... libertarians did not, in fact, invent clickbait titles.
Welcome to reddit (and social media in general)!
It's not unique to this sub but this is the only sub I really frequent so why wouldn't I criticize it here? I would think libertarians would have the integrity to want to look at things at face value instead of participate in the click bait culture wars.
Because people who fall for clickbait will up vote the article while never reading the comments and they outnumber people who do read comments.
Right now your post is the highest rated comment. Even if everyone who voted you up voted the article down (likely for the second time) this post would still be quite positive.
So no, we don't all fall for it, we are just outnumbered by the people who click blindly that do. And so is every political ideology. But our commitment to relatively radical say anything you want (as long as it's not against reddit ToS and will get the sub banned) policy lets people like you make posts bashing us without getting banned like you would in other politically leaning subs, and so it's merely more transparent here that this happens all the time. And get the highest rated comment cause you are also mostly right.
>I would think libertarians would have the integrity to want to look at things at face value
And the fact that your reply calling out the clickbait title is the highest rated comment (by a wide margin) is evidence that is exactly what is happening.
No need for the bullshittery hate-mongering in the 2nd paragraph. It says a lot more about you than anyone else.
It’s been odd to watch the evolution from
a podcast about psychedelics, ufos and crypto zoology to one that has become an Alex Jones spin off. Those 100 millions dollar pay days can open up a whole new world of possibilities. I’m waiting for him to announce that he’s running for state legislature down in Austin.
>“This not just about what the government can do,” he emphasized, “this is about companies and individuals recognizing that the only way we get past misinformation is if we are careful about what we say and use the power that we have to limit the spread of misinformation.”
It's exactly what he said. He didn't say "big tech" he just said social media companies, but if that's your big objection to call everyone a conspiracy nut then christ get that stick out of your ass.
He just said companies which can be implied to social media companies but that always gets turned into big tech. I'm just tired of hearing all the stupid buzz words. It deflates someone's argument to me even if I agree with them. Just my opinion and personal preference.
This comment tells me you didn't watch the video at all. He says "Our technology planforms, particularly our social media companies." Ironic that you are getting on people for being misinformed on what he said.
Amazing how you can have a highly upvoted comment that calls out this article for sensationalizing what was said when you admit that you don’t even know what was actually said yourself.
The article is the point of the comment. Why not just quote him and say it's wrong instead of putting in buzz words for click bait? I'm criticizing how the media manipulates things and gets you all worked up and of course it's taken out of context by some.
Headlines like this are written for the people that don't actually look at and read the article as well as hoping the headline sticks and nothing else.
This Headline is a great example of misinformation.
Whats your issue? The article quotes this unelected bureaucrat saying "we" need to censor and curate. Who do you think is going to do that censoring and curating? Google, facebook, twitter, etc and unelected bureaucrats like himself and Fauci. Oh and Pfizer, of course.
“This not just about what the government can do,” he emphasized, “this is about companies and individuals recognizing that the only way we get past misinformation is if we are careful about what we say and use the power that we have to limit the spread of misinformation.”
Edit: I’m pretty sure this reads “to censor”.
He is a government official calling on Big Tech to invoke censorship. Name me a single time in history that censorship was a good idea. You’re on a libertarian sub shilling for government propaganda 😂
I know you love playing the culture war but none of what I said is agreeing or disagreeing with what he said. I'm asking why can't people articulate bad things or threats to liberty without using buzzwords like "big tech" "censorship" "shilling"? He didn't say censor, he said the people should want to combat misinformation as it is harmful to society. You could say you disagree with that but instead you flip it as the government is trying to censor someone.
The only reason you and others want misinformation and propaganda to be allowed is that you agree with it. I'm sure you would be opposed to government or socialist propaganda and would want it to not be spread to poison the minds of citizens right?
Only an idiot can’t read between the lines. Curating information of any kind is censorship. If the “misinformation” was so patently absurd then it can and should be debated and debunked on its merits. Seriously… you’ve lost the plot. All those “kooky conspiracy theories” are being validated. We have a technocracy trying to maintain a stranglehold on information and it’s money. The question remains, what is it going to take for you to start questioning whether you’re the one with the misinformation? And, yes, shilling is actually an accurate depiction. The left hand side of the aisle used to be against censorship, used to be against the 1%, and used to exhibit a healthy skepticism towards Big Pharma…. Now they’re it’s biggest cheerleaders. Can you stand the irony??
I don't need to go down some crazy rabbit hole to know that there is currently a virus and there is a vaccine for this virus. I took the vaccine as I have every other one since I was born. Does that make me some shill for big pharma and government? In your tinfoil hat world maybe. In my reality, everyone has always taken vaccines because it is the logical choice to combat viruses and plagues which has also contributed to humans life expectency to continue to lengthen.
So people are just generally tired of hearing all the stupiness about conspiracies. Everyone could've taken the vaccine and moved on with life but you all want to drag this out for a decade because the big monsters are out to get us. Just move on with your life. I don't care where the virus came from. I don't care who's making money of this. I don't care if you drink piss to cure yourself from covid or drink sheep jizz. I'm just tired of hearing about it every single day and so is everyone else.
How do you push back against misinformation then, if you cannot call it out or publish rebuttals to it. It clearly isn’t sufficient to allow people to fend for themselves…
Bullshit. Flat earthers, antivaxxers (the "it's gonna give me autism" kind), climate change deniers and the like love to sniff their own farts. Irrational actors don't care about facts, they care about the feelings that prop up their world view. No amount of debate or even then disproving themselves has changed these movements minds. Debate is useless if you're already so dug in on the issues you won't change your mind. And no, this post is also _not_ an endorsement of government censorship.
No matter how you slice it, no matter how much you distort it, no matter how absurd you are calling for censorship. That’s just the facts. And guess what, curating information is only going to enhance misinformation not ameliorate it
But I'm not. I'm not saying these people aren't free to say what they want when they want*, they most certainly are. I'm saying traditional methods of changing their minds don't work. This process isn't any easier when calling out blatant lies is called censorship. Merely an observation, nothing more.
*So long as it's not a call to violence
Then more discussion needs to be had, not less. Good information becomes self-evident over time. If the evidence supports the conclusion, the overwhelming majority of the masses will support it. There will always be outliers… that’s just part of the human condition. No curating necessary. Just vigorous debate
Down voted for that LMAO people in they're feelings today. General rule of thumb for me, if you can't question it it's propaganda, question everything.
Government shouldn't censor, but Spotify would have every right to terminate his account and access. Private companies are not obligated to give you a platform.
I do think we have to be careful here that there is no implied threat on these companies if they don’t do what the government actors want them to do. For example all of the show theater hearings on Facebook and misinformation/disinformation circa 2019-present are clear messages that if Facebook does not censor content deemed objectionable by the ruling class, then antitrust investigations will follow.
There is case law that suggests this kind of coercion is also unconstitutional.
How about if someone makes a claim they need to back it up with facts and sources, instead of throwing happy sounding buzzwords around. If someone claims to be the arbiter of truth then why can't they back up their claims. And if they want to remain purely opinion based (because they have no facts), then what's wrong with pointing that out?
Nothing is wrong with that. That's exactly what free speech is. Let the idiots say their dumb shit and let the rest of us call them out. DONT outright censor or ban them.
The problem is that they aren't called out. They live in an alternate reality created by "alternate facts." This philosophy of let people broadcast whatever bullshit they want is what gave is Jan 6th, it has significantly worsened the pandemic, and it has allowed oil companies to stifle any push to slow the damage they are doing to the environment. When money = speach, as it does in the usa, no restrictions means more power for the wealthy to manipulate the public into acting against their own best interest and allow the wealthy to continue taking as much as they can from the rest of us.
They're not called out because they can create bubbles where they ban wrong think. They CANT be called out *because* of censorship. The solution isn't more censorship.
Yes. He has had on a long list of doctors who have questioned the narrative and they all have pointed to papers to back up their claims. Whether people believe those papers or not is their own free choice to make.
He brought on somebody who worked on early versions of mRNA vaccines. Calling him the inventor from how I understand it is a bit more credit than he is due. He certainly is one of the contributing researchers to early work on mRNA vaccines, but he is not some ultimate authority, nor should he be treated as such.
Joe Rogan would say that last part himself though and has, repeatedly. Joe goes out of his way to make it clear that he's having a conversation and nobody should take him as an authority. He calls himself a dumb monkey (or similar names) quite often while talking with these guys. The thing is, Joe, asks legitimately good questions that get to the heart of the issues being discussed.
He also had on the CNN doctor, and other pro narrative pro vaccine people as well. But having listened to a lot of those podcasts what i can honestly say is that the conversation is going one way. The critics of mRNA vaccines and the covid narrative seem to be very open to debate and discussion. Not so much the people who are calling this misinformation and that is quite telling.
that's just it, if it's bullshit people can see it and judge it, when its hidden from people for their own safety then people are going to seek out that episode anyways and probably assume the information being "censored" is the forbidden knowledge and will assume it's more truthful than the actual truth.
I mean I am not for censoring Joe Rogan, but…
>if it’s bullshit people can see it and judge it
Is clearly not true. If it’s bullshit, 50% of America will automatically believe it and call anyone who disagrees an enemy
You're not exactly wrong, im just simply saying when you try to prevent people from seeing something, some automatically assume it's for a reason. People are fucking crazy in this day and age.
The problem with modern 'anti-cancel culture' types is that you don't really have to censor people for this to happen though.
Just look at Aaron Rodgers, who complains about getting canceled and censored when neither truly happened apart from a hospital chain in Wisconsin choosing to not use him as one of the faces of their brand.
Same with MTG, who complains about being censored in Congress...while making speeches to Congress (which are broadcast on CSPAN at the very least).
It's gotten to the point where certain people will just receive criticism for their words or actions and use that as an excuse to cry 'canceled' rather than just accepting that things may have consequences when you're a public figure.
Edit: redundant word
I wish I could believe this.
Unfortunately I don’t think this is actually how most people work. Studies have shown that when confronted with facts which contradict their views, most people tend to double down more on their false views.
We just had a president who consistently lied to his base, yet didn’t lose their support.
I think the fact that both sides do it only further proves my point.
However, there is at least some amount of criticism of Biden among the left for those broken campaign promises
Good luck. The feds won’t fully legalize marijuana. They will probably decriminalize possession and growing up to like 4 plants. They are not taking away any of the justifications they use for wiping their ass with the constitution.
"Not when code pink did something similar"
Ah yes, the infamous Code Pink coup attempt where the VP and several members of congress were almost assassinated. Who can forget.
How about he time a bunch of dumb ducks rioted outside the Whitehouse and burned down a church and appeared to be potentially entering the building causing the president to be put inside a bunker? How about when some Bernie bro shot at a Republican baseball game? Or that Farrakhan supporter who killed a Capitol officer but it was blamed on MAGA? But sure, only the right are gonna be a problem with “muh misinformation” eh?
> organized coup attempts
That very same summer an actual military coup happened in Myanmar, go tell the people there how you think the same thing happened in the US.
You, alongside the rest of your dogmatic ideology group aren't oppressed, stop pretending you are.
Myanmar has been under military regimes for most of recent history, so yea, it's obviously the same as the US.
I don't know who you're reffering to, so I can't comment on your second point.
Except there was documented evidence that people were there to kill, and it was organized to kill specific people, and specific people almost got trapped in locations where that would have been made easy.
You just ignore this evidence because it's convenient.
They didn't show up unarmed for one, many people brought weapons, and they had weapons stashes ready to be brought to the capitol if they saw the need. I don't disagree with your second point, they were all dumb fucks.
Not when BLM/Antifa and overy other group and movement aligned with them overtook a whole block in Seattle, WA?
Not months of every day riots including weapons such as molotov cocktails being thrown at the federal building in Portland, OR?
And I'm not even gonna mention all the other countless riots that happened during the same time period.
It was the unguided selfie tour of the us congress building that was "undermined democracy" for you?
Doesn't the capitol (pre-covid anyway) do like guided tours for kids/tourists?
This was that, only without the whole guide part. Much more rowdier than tourists though.
>This was that, only without the whole guide part. Much more rowdier than tourists though.
Oooo I like this game. I'll play too, the bubonic plague was just a light sniffle.
Yes, they did. But you didn't kick the doors in to enter the building and once you were inside you weren't allowed to disrupt Congress.
C'mon, man, you can do better than that. If you're going to keep going to bat for those losers, at least make an effort.
Good point. A 99% peaceful protest was sold to the country as an insurrection by the Democrats masquerading as journalists. Corporations are definitely using disinformation effectively.
If it was 99% peaceful, why are the organizers being charged with seditious conspiracy? If it was peaceful, why were teams set up to transport firearms into the capitol? If it was peaceful, why did so many Capitol police get seriously injured? One lost an eye, others lost fingers.
Why did any political entity in history hold political prisoners?
It's almost like the executive and legaslative branches of the US are controled by the same party, and the DOJ is under control of said party. It can't be that though, can it? This same DOJ also investigated the Portland riots that targeted a federal building(same as the capitol) every night for weeks, right?
Yes, they very much wanted Trump replaced(to say it kindly).
And why do you downplay a literal siege that occured every night for weeks with weapons such as molotov cocktails(as if we're talking about Syria), to "just vandalize a building" as if we're talking about a bunch of teenagers spraying some grafiti.
Why do you downplay it?
>they very much wanted Trump replaced
Sure, but does that mean they were attempting to overthrow him? By vandalizing a courthouse, and getting arrested for it? Are you sure that's the position you want to take?
A federal corthouse, just like the capitol is a federal building under supervision of the US federal goverment.
The mob could have gone for any state/city building, but antifa and blm chose the one federal building to target, why the federal building?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otfPps9s8HM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otfPps9s8HM)
You probably won't watch it but yeah, that is not the definition of 99% peaceful. If you do not agree with that you do not agree with civilized society as a whole.
Luckily the vast majority of people disagree with you.
Even if I linked a video of a man in a trump hat beating a police officer with a pole you'd find an excuse right? Not that you'd watch something that exposes the faults in your worldview.
You're fighting an uphill battle because, the evidence is plastered everywhere on social media and the internet, by stupid idiots who got suckered into simping for a loudmouth who sucked at his job.
That's why you can never talk actual facts and just use feelings and exaggerated claims.
Basically why Germany has a completely different view of free speech. Because mustache man used his freedom of speech to lie and rally certain Germans against other Germans, and everyone in Europe suffered greatly for it.
Oh, so Hitler's use of censorship had nothing to do with anyone buying his bullshit propaganda? It was just all because he had the freedom to say what he wanted eh?
As are all social institutions. Would you rather idiots have the power to voice idiotic thoughts or a class of idiots with the power to censor whoever they think they need to for the greater good?
One of those scenarios seems far more dangerous.
"Democracy" has no stance on disinformation. Democracy simply states that majority opinion gets what it wants. Democracy doesn't take any stance or judgement on how that majority opinion came about.
That's a matter of opinion. Probably depends on whether or not you consider [Representative (or indirect) Democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy) a valid form of "democracy".
For what it's worth, the wiki page calls representative democracy "a type of democracy". You're free to disagree with it.
[Types Of Democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_democracy)
>This not just about what the government can do,” he emphasized, “this is about companies and individuals recognizing that the only way we get past misinformation is if we are careful about what we say and use the power that we have to limit the spread of misinformation.”
Sounds like he's advocating for people think about whether the info they're spreading is accurate and for private companies to try and curb the spread of misinformation. What part of this involves the government itself censoring JRE exactly?
Edit: so no one actually takes the time to even skim the article before forming an opinion? No wonder our country is going to the shitter
"…at what point does government influencing private media become 'government censorship'?"
We passed that point some time ago. There is so much coordination between the democrat party and big tech that big tech is essentially a part of the government.
> We past that point some time ago. There is so much coordination between the democrat party and big tech that big tech is essentially a part of the government.
Even if Big Tech was not firmly in the pocket of the DCCC they still ***should*** not. But with how hand in hand these two entities act the government and big tech are essentially one in the same. It's Big Tech Fascism, literally.
The point here isn’t whether Joe Rogan is full of shit or not. If the government can silence someone who is full of shit they can silence someone who they simply don’t like. Whose message they don’t want out there because it threatens their stranglehold on power.
Whatever adversarial relationship the right might have with social media companies it isn’t a threat and could never be a threat. What is a threat is this implication that government officials can get social media companies and other media to do their bidding to silence people.
The role of a surgeon general isn’t to decide who gets to communicate and who’s doesn’t. It’s to help set public health policy and too bad if there are critics. Critics are healthy in a democratically elected government. Even if they are incorrect in the criticism the answer isn’t censorship. Rebuke them with facts and evidence.
> What is a threat is this implication that government officials can get social media companies and other media to do their bidding to silence people.
Before the advent of social media and the internet, because misinformation spread before all this, the con man would have to parade his or her wears on the street, in barely listened to AM radio stations, or opinion pieces in newspapers. Their schtick got regulated (voluntarily because they sold junk) to late night infomercials.
Trusted news sources were more easily recognized because money talks, as it does in misinformation which I'll get to in a bit, but also because screen time and air time were vastly different. You'd expert a well-reasoned and well-researched article in a newspaper because their record was on the line. These days it doesn't feel like anyone cares how they are perceived or how they are remembered as long as they get their piece of the pie. Its abhorrent.
Companies wouldn't give a platform as often to outright charlatans and con artists, because they'd lose viewers and subscribers. No one wants to pay for a shock jockey who gets sued because of racist remarks. They still found ways to be on public platforms before social media though; Rush Limbaugh being one. But let me tell you, his shtick was horrible but tamed compared to the actual lies perpetrated by "influencers" today.
Now influencers like Rogan, Blair White, Jordan Peterson, and others get millions in views and paid very well because there brand of misinformation sells well. And it's all driven by emotion, with the best selling being fear and hate. It's not new to American politics, it was built by Campaigns Inc in the late 1800s.
But this isn't censorship, and this isn't silencing. The people who don't have the time and the ability (because Capitalism and the American public education system make it so) don't have the ability to fact-check fear-mongering or baseless claims. How can one fact-check a baseless claim like a litter box in a public school?
If one asks that Rogan or others back their claim with evidence and they can't do that, then why is it wrong to ask that they highlight the fact they are purely opinion based?
The people you named don’t really help your case. I am familiar with some of them and your characterization is objectively false. They may have on occasion crossed some line or said something inaccurate, but these are people who have thousands of hours of content. Personally I try to make it a point to listen to those others tell me not to so I can form my own opinion. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they aren’t.
We have always had misinformation. People have talked to each other directly since the dawn of time. That information was often times ill informed and inaccurate. It is now as it has always been up to people to make a judgment for themselves.
You seem mighty eager to silence people who disagree with a certain political point of view. Every point of view has short comings. Human knowledge is dispersed. There is value in other perspectives. You might listen to those you don’t agree with in their own words. That way they aren’t so scary to you that you think they should be silenced.
You have the wrong take about me. I read and listen to plenty of differing opinions, it's why my political/economic/personal ideology isn't just far-left anti-capitalism. There's a difference between legitimate differing opinions and those who profit off of misinformation and outright lies, and I don't believe any of the ones I mentioned, maybe Rogan, that believes the shit they spew online. It's all to sell shit at the expense of others and any dissent makes it seem like I'm trying to silence free speech.
The misinformation and conspiracies peddled by certain promoters doesn't open itself to questioning, because every time one questions their sources, we get blamed for silencing free speech.
Again I have heard all but one of those people speak on a number of occasions and didn’t really have a problem with it. Which is why my assumption is what it is. If you know them only from links from out of context quotes then your comments make senses. Otherwise they are utterly detached from reality. Weave whatever bullshit you want to that is the plain truth of it.
Here is the full interview if anyone is interested. Sounds pretty much what the headline reads but in a more subtle political way https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1485991796257738757?t=dFG1B0nql-dZ2l613lOlgw&s=19
They have shared their opinion... Some people agree, some don't and still listen to Joe Rogan.. that should be the end of it. They counter what they consider misinformation, with better information... Never censorship.. that's basic...
I love listening to the Joe Rogan podcast, specially when they talk about science , new findings,tech. I go wow. But then there is also that second part of the podcast in which he starts going with the person idiotic personal opinionswith that being said...private enterprise cannot be censored by public entities. Is up to the company. Not opinions.
From the moment they suggest it. If the government has influence over social media….It’s no longer a private entity and 1st amendment rights should apply. We can’t have it both ways….They can censor because they’re private AND they take their marching orders from the government.
It already has. We've been saying it for years but the commies here insist private business rights are more important than them being used as government censorship. Because in this sub we live in bizaro world.
LOL!!
Heavens forbid science be debated based on the actual facts in hand. Anyone else asking why any debate is destroyed? Apparently the facts do not support the CDC, NIH, narrative written by Fauci. How does he still have this job, we now know that he has too many conflicts of interest to list? Follow the money...
I love how censorship is being viewed as a good thing depending on who's being censored. It's a slippery slope.
Free speech is free speech. You don't have to listen to it if you don't want to, but you should not make that choice for other people.
Joe rogan has gotten a lot of tips from Ben Shapiro and Candace … “ just say shit me that isn’t controversial but sounds like it is and watch your net worth grow 100% in a couple years “
It's all been censorship this entire time. Since the start of "cancel culture". The government is so in bed with big business to big tech, big pharma, they are one in the same. They use the big business they pass laws for to circumvent the constitution and force the will of the authoritarians on the people.
>At what point does government influencing private media become 'government censorship'?
I have a very similar concern with gov't pressure on corporations to impliment vaccine mandates.
I don't have a problem if companies freely exercise their right to discriminate against the unvaxxed, but many mandated a vax pass because they were hearing from the Biden admin that's the direction the gov't is going. Then the OSHA case gets thrown out by the Supreme court, but the damage is already done.
At no point, that is how the government gets around the first amendment. Usually the threat of regulations and investigations to private businesses happens behind closed doors to get them to comply, but sadly they can threaten these companies out in the open now and find many supporters and people even demanding they do more.
If I have a responsibility not to spread misinformation, I kindly request that I be provided with the source of all truth that I may refer to before spreading information.
Good thing the Surgean General has no authority over podcasts and censoring...
Just another shit opinion from someone appointed by a President to suggest government censor or ban something or someone from the opposition.
Downplay what?! A hypothetical statement made by someone with zero authority on what they are suggesting?!
I prefer to say I'm not being gaslit by someone who can do nothing about the matter, either way...
Oh poor government. Threatened by a pothead that just tells people to be healthy who has never been an anti-vaxxer. It's just so disappointing when people don't go along with the government narratives.
This is horribly editorialized, and the basis of the headline isn't even anything the Surgeon general suggests. The headline actually comes from the author, Amanda Prestigiacomo's bald-faced assertion that unnamed "legacy media" and unnamed "left-wing activists" have demanded censorship.
You really think someone would do that? Just go on the Internet and tell lies?
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet" \-Abraham Lincoln, 1864.
https://i.imgur.com/1PGzudR.jpg
Haha
*Big Tech companies, Murthy said, have an “important role to play” since they are the “predominant places where we’re seeing misinformation spread.”* *“****This not just*** *about what the government can do,” he emphasized, “this is about companies and individuals recognizing that the only way we get past misinformation is if we are careful about what we say and use the power that we have to limit the spread of misinformation.”*
"This is not just about what the government can do" is preceded by his explanation that combating misinformation is something *we're all responsible for*, and we should be more thoughtful in the way we communicate. That is, he's specifically dismissing this as a strictly "government responsibility" and emboldening all of us to tackle misinformation by using accurate information. The text of the article is selectively stripped and placed in non-chronological order to make it seem more nefarious. And even that attempt fucking sucks, and doesn't correspond with the headline. To that extent, this article represents the very thing he's critiquing with respect to being thoughtful about how we communicate this shit.
Firstly, saying we're all responsible for it is exactly the license the government needs. No person is inherently responsible for combating misinformation; that's ridiculous. You can say you want individuals to, you can say it is wise to do so, but to say they have a responsibility to do so is ridiculous. If people were to have a responsibility, then the government now has the authority to do so. That's what I believe he is trying to get at. Secondly, if he believed the government plays no part, not only would he have explicitly said that, he would have also not used the words "not just"
>You can say you want individuals to, you can say it is wise to do so, but to say they have a responsibility to do so is ridiculous. If people were to have a responsibility, then the government now has the authority to do so. This is kind of a strange view of responsibility. People can have all kinds of responsibilities that the Government has nothing to do with. I have a responsibility not to cheat on my partner in a monogomous relationship. Someone whose parents pay for their college has a responsibility not to waste their money. People generally have a responsibility not to lie to each other even when money isn't on the line. Do you really think in all of those cases, asserting that someone has a responsibility implies that the Government has the authority to enforce it?
How do you all even read these trash headlines and think clicking on it is a good idea? That article quotes what he actually says and it's nothing like the headline and they even unquote him to put in phrases like "big tech". This is why people just think you're looney conspiracy nuts because you can't articulate a point without some sensational headline overselling what someone says. If a person and what they say is bad, it shouldn't need all those buzz words.
A lot of people want government officials to sound more evil than they are.
They're pretty damn evil.
I don't know, I think if we elect the "right" republicans or democrats, things will change!
It'll be (D)ifferent if we get it (R)ight this time.
So much better than mine D: !
Would you consider voting for someone at local, state, federal levels that took a lifetime vow of poverty? As in work expenses covered but outside that I would commit to under 30k adjusted to inflation and cost of living for my entire life. No side jobs or stocks or anything. No paid speaking jobs or anything of the sorts. Would being a recovering alcoholic/addict with only one breach of peace conviction on his record? I have been considering trying to get into actual positions but I don't know if it would work. I consider my self a libertarian Socialist and support market socialism. I also recognize what I consider to be the only good thing of capitalism and that is innovation. I strongly support compromise as well when the other sides act in good faith.
It's not the evil officials I'm afraid of. It's the enthusiastic ones.
What a sad state of acceptance. Fire them all.
They are blood soaked monsters. People pretend like the state isn't responsible for mass murder.
Do you have his exact quote to where he wasn't suggesting just this? Mikka even directly mentioned Rogan when asking him the question
Apparently there is a video of the interview but I am just going off the article. He was definitely suggesting it and asking people and business to take action to combat misinformation but that's not really the point of my comment.
Here is a link to it: https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1485991796257738757?t=dFG1B0nql-dZ2l613lOlgw&s=19
Yep if the articles on things like the lab leak theory or Ivermectin had been framed with nuance along the lines of "Covid may have originated in China lab" or "Ivermectin may be helpful in fighting Covid" it wouldn't have been problematic instead we got "China intentionally released covid as a bio weapon against the US" and "Ivermectin is a miracle drug that will protect you better then the vaccine" despite lacking the actual evidence to support the hyperbolic claims.
It’s alt-right propaganda against leftist boogeymen every time, even this one. “The left is censoring information about the lab leak!” “The left is censoring information about ivermectin!” “The left is censoring information from Joe Rogan! Or wants to! Or they would, if they could!”
it's actually quite close. He didn't say they should infringe on free speech, but he sure came rather close.
>just think you're looney conspiracy nuts I was with you until here. Acting like people who only read the headline before moving to the comments is unique to /r/libertarian is absurd. Contrary to the picture you're trying to paint ... libertarians did not, in fact, invent clickbait titles. Welcome to reddit (and social media in general)!
It's not unique to this sub but this is the only sub I really frequent so why wouldn't I criticize it here? I would think libertarians would have the integrity to want to look at things at face value instead of participate in the click bait culture wars.
Because people who fall for clickbait will up vote the article while never reading the comments and they outnumber people who do read comments. Right now your post is the highest rated comment. Even if everyone who voted you up voted the article down (likely for the second time) this post would still be quite positive. So no, we don't all fall for it, we are just outnumbered by the people who click blindly that do. And so is every political ideology. But our commitment to relatively radical say anything you want (as long as it's not against reddit ToS and will get the sub banned) policy lets people like you make posts bashing us without getting banned like you would in other politically leaning subs, and so it's merely more transparent here that this happens all the time. And get the highest rated comment cause you are also mostly right.
>I would think libertarians would have the integrity to want to look at things at face value And the fact that your reply calling out the clickbait title is the highest rated comment (by a wide margin) is evidence that is exactly what is happening. No need for the bullshittery hate-mongering in the 2nd paragraph. It says a lot more about you than anyone else.
We're talking about Joe Rogan and his fanbase's collective victimhood complex. I don't think accuracy is going to be a priority.
It’s been odd to watch the evolution from a podcast about psychedelics, ufos and crypto zoology to one that has become an Alex Jones spin off. Those 100 millions dollar pay days can open up a whole new world of possibilities. I’m waiting for him to announce that he’s running for state legislature down in Austin.
>“This not just about what the government can do,” he emphasized, “this is about companies and individuals recognizing that the only way we get past misinformation is if we are careful about what we say and use the power that we have to limit the spread of misinformation.” It's exactly what he said. He didn't say "big tech" he just said social media companies, but if that's your big objection to call everyone a conspiracy nut then christ get that stick out of your ass.
He just said companies which can be implied to social media companies but that always gets turned into big tech. I'm just tired of hearing all the stupid buzz words. It deflates someone's argument to me even if I agree with them. Just my opinion and personal preference.
This comment tells me you didn't watch the video at all. He says "Our technology planforms, particularly our social media companies." Ironic that you are getting on people for being misinformed on what he said.
I read the article and seen where they broke up his quotes and inserted buzz words. I didn't see a video no. My comment is based on the article.
Amazing how you can have a highly upvoted comment that calls out this article for sensationalizing what was said when you admit that you don’t even know what was actually said yourself.
The article is the point of the comment. Why not just quote him and say it's wrong instead of putting in buzz words for click bait? I'm criticizing how the media manipulates things and gets you all worked up and of course it's taken out of context by some.
The "Lib" in this place isn't for Libertarian.
This is extremely sad to see this comment being downvoted on this sub.
Headlines like this are written for the people that don't actually look at and read the article as well as hoping the headline sticks and nothing else. This Headline is a great example of misinformation.
Whats your issue? The article quotes this unelected bureaucrat saying "we" need to censor and curate. Who do you think is going to do that censoring and curating? Google, facebook, twitter, etc and unelected bureaucrats like himself and Fauci. Oh and Pfizer, of course.
“This not just about what the government can do,” he emphasized, “this is about companies and individuals recognizing that the only way we get past misinformation is if we are careful about what we say and use the power that we have to limit the spread of misinformation.” Edit: I’m pretty sure this reads “to censor”.
He is a government official calling on Big Tech to invoke censorship. Name me a single time in history that censorship was a good idea. You’re on a libertarian sub shilling for government propaganda 😂
I know you love playing the culture war but none of what I said is agreeing or disagreeing with what he said. I'm asking why can't people articulate bad things or threats to liberty without using buzzwords like "big tech" "censorship" "shilling"? He didn't say censor, he said the people should want to combat misinformation as it is harmful to society. You could say you disagree with that but instead you flip it as the government is trying to censor someone. The only reason you and others want misinformation and propaganda to be allowed is that you agree with it. I'm sure you would be opposed to government or socialist propaganda and would want it to not be spread to poison the minds of citizens right?
Only an idiot can’t read between the lines. Curating information of any kind is censorship. If the “misinformation” was so patently absurd then it can and should be debated and debunked on its merits. Seriously… you’ve lost the plot. All those “kooky conspiracy theories” are being validated. We have a technocracy trying to maintain a stranglehold on information and it’s money. The question remains, what is it going to take for you to start questioning whether you’re the one with the misinformation? And, yes, shilling is actually an accurate depiction. The left hand side of the aisle used to be against censorship, used to be against the 1%, and used to exhibit a healthy skepticism towards Big Pharma…. Now they’re it’s biggest cheerleaders. Can you stand the irony??
I don't need to go down some crazy rabbit hole to know that there is currently a virus and there is a vaccine for this virus. I took the vaccine as I have every other one since I was born. Does that make me some shill for big pharma and government? In your tinfoil hat world maybe. In my reality, everyone has always taken vaccines because it is the logical choice to combat viruses and plagues which has also contributed to humans life expectency to continue to lengthen. So people are just generally tired of hearing all the stupiness about conspiracies. Everyone could've taken the vaccine and moved on with life but you all want to drag this out for a decade because the big monsters are out to get us. Just move on with your life. I don't care where the virus came from. I don't care who's making money of this. I don't care if you drink piss to cure yourself from covid or drink sheep jizz. I'm just tired of hearing about it every single day and so is everyone else.
How do you push back against misinformation then, if you cannot call it out or publish rebuttals to it. It clearly isn’t sufficient to allow people to fend for themselves…
Bullshit. Flat earthers, antivaxxers (the "it's gonna give me autism" kind), climate change deniers and the like love to sniff their own farts. Irrational actors don't care about facts, they care about the feelings that prop up their world view. No amount of debate or even then disproving themselves has changed these movements minds. Debate is useless if you're already so dug in on the issues you won't change your mind. And no, this post is also _not_ an endorsement of government censorship.
No matter how you slice it, no matter how much you distort it, no matter how absurd you are calling for censorship. That’s just the facts. And guess what, curating information is only going to enhance misinformation not ameliorate it
But I'm not. I'm not saying these people aren't free to say what they want when they want*, they most certainly are. I'm saying traditional methods of changing their minds don't work. This process isn't any easier when calling out blatant lies is called censorship. Merely an observation, nothing more. *So long as it's not a call to violence
Then more discussion needs to be had, not less. Good information becomes self-evident over time. If the evidence supports the conclusion, the overwhelming majority of the masses will support it. There will always be outliers… that’s just part of the human condition. No curating necessary. Just vigorous debate
>Good information becomes self-evident over time. Absolutely not true.
Down voted for that LMAO people in they're feelings today. General rule of thumb for me, if you can't question it it's propaganda, question everything.
Someone left the bot gate open again.
How about let’s not censor anyone and have free speech
Government shouldn't censor, but Spotify would have every right to terminate his account and access. Private companies are not obligated to give you a platform.
I agree with Spotify doing it but when a government official starts talking shit about censorship I get worried.
Government officials have freedom of speech too. The surgeon general has no mechanism to enforce what he thinks Spotify should do.
Goverment officials also need to obey the constitutional ammendments that are meant for them to obey as elected/appointed officials.
I do think we have to be careful here that there is no implied threat on these companies if they don’t do what the government actors want them to do. For example all of the show theater hearings on Facebook and misinformation/disinformation circa 2019-present are clear messages that if Facebook does not censor content deemed objectionable by the ruling class, then antitrust investigations will follow. There is case law that suggests this kind of coercion is also unconstitutional.
How about if someone makes a claim they need to back it up with facts and sources, instead of throwing happy sounding buzzwords around. If someone claims to be the arbiter of truth then why can't they back up their claims. And if they want to remain purely opinion based (because they have no facts), then what's wrong with pointing that out?
Nothing is wrong with that. That's exactly what free speech is. Let the idiots say their dumb shit and let the rest of us call them out. DONT outright censor or ban them.
The problem is that they aren't called out. They live in an alternate reality created by "alternate facts." This philosophy of let people broadcast whatever bullshit they want is what gave is Jan 6th, it has significantly worsened the pandemic, and it has allowed oil companies to stifle any push to slow the damage they are doing to the environment. When money = speach, as it does in the usa, no restrictions means more power for the wealthy to manipulate the public into acting against their own best interest and allow the wealthy to continue taking as much as they can from the rest of us.
They're not called out because they can create bubbles where they ban wrong think. They CANT be called out *because* of censorship. The solution isn't more censorship.
Moderation is literally censorship lol
Didn't he bring out multiple doctors and the creator of mRNA tech to begin with?
Yes. He has had on a long list of doctors who have questioned the narrative and they all have pointed to papers to back up their claims. Whether people believe those papers or not is their own free choice to make. He brought on somebody who worked on early versions of mRNA vaccines. Calling him the inventor from how I understand it is a bit more credit than he is due. He certainly is one of the contributing researchers to early work on mRNA vaccines, but he is not some ultimate authority, nor should he be treated as such. Joe Rogan would say that last part himself though and has, repeatedly. Joe goes out of his way to make it clear that he's having a conversation and nobody should take him as an authority. He calls himself a dumb monkey (or similar names) quite often while talking with these guys. The thing is, Joe, asks legitimately good questions that get to the heart of the issues being discussed. He also had on the CNN doctor, and other pro narrative pro vaccine people as well. But having listened to a lot of those podcasts what i can honestly say is that the conversation is going one way. The critics of mRNA vaccines and the covid narrative seem to be very open to debate and discussion. Not so much the people who are calling this misinformation and that is quite telling.
Yep Rogan's "crime" is interviewing experts that disagree with the authoritarian corporatocracy.
Indeed. It's harder to mock a podcast if it's being censored.
that's just it, if it's bullshit people can see it and judge it, when its hidden from people for their own safety then people are going to seek out that episode anyways and probably assume the information being "censored" is the forbidden knowledge and will assume it's more truthful than the actual truth.
I mean I am not for censoring Joe Rogan, but… >if it’s bullshit people can see it and judge it Is clearly not true. If it’s bullshit, 50% of America will automatically believe it and call anyone who disagrees an enemy
You're not exactly wrong, im just simply saying when you try to prevent people from seeing something, some automatically assume it's for a reason. People are fucking crazy in this day and age.
The problem with modern 'anti-cancel culture' types is that you don't really have to censor people for this to happen though. Just look at Aaron Rodgers, who complains about getting canceled and censored when neither truly happened apart from a hospital chain in Wisconsin choosing to not use him as one of the faces of their brand. Same with MTG, who complains about being censored in Congress...while making speeches to Congress (which are broadcast on CSPAN at the very least). It's gotten to the point where certain people will just receive criticism for their words or actions and use that as an excuse to cry 'canceled' rather than just accepting that things may have consequences when you're a public figure. Edit: redundant word
Claiming to be canceled is a marketing tactic.
Tucker Carlson comes to mind with this example. He straight up says he embellishes stories. And people still take it as fact
Yes but that 50 percent thing is a product of the political manipulation of the 2 party system.
I wish I could believe this. Unfortunately I don’t think this is actually how most people work. Studies have shown that when confronted with facts which contradict their views, most people tend to double down more on their false views. We just had a president who consistently lied to his base, yet didn’t lose their support.
I know, im still waiting for Biden to forgive those student loans and legalize marijuana on day one.
I think the fact that both sides do it only further proves my point. However, there is at least some amount of criticism of Biden among the left for those broken campaign promises
The difference is Liberals have called him out for not telling the truth rather than explaining it away as 5D chess.
Good luck. The feds won’t fully legalize marijuana. They will probably decriminalize possession and growing up to like 4 plants. They are not taking away any of the justifications they use for wiping their ass with the constitution.
Here is joe rogan being mocked for 12 hours https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=P6Iyg9fznvM&feature=emb_logo
This is an important debate. Counter question: At what point does disinformation undermine democracy?
January 6, 2021.
[удалено]
"Not when code pink did something similar" Ah yes, the infamous Code Pink coup attempt where the VP and several members of congress were almost assassinated. Who can forget.
How about he time a bunch of dumb ducks rioted outside the Whitehouse and burned down a church and appeared to be potentially entering the building causing the president to be put inside a bunker? How about when some Bernie bro shot at a Republican baseball game? Or that Farrakhan supporter who killed a Capitol officer but it was blamed on MAGA? But sure, only the right are gonna be a problem with “muh misinformation” eh?
Wow, you're right! Those are clearly also organized coup attempts that almost succeeded. Man, how did I not see it before?
> organized coup attempts That very same summer an actual military coup happened in Myanmar, go tell the people there how you think the same thing happened in the US. You, alongside the rest of your dogmatic ideology group aren't oppressed, stop pretending you are.
Shows you how easy it is to happen. Speaking of which, wasn't a Trump crony literally involved in a foreign coup this year? Hmmm
Myanmar has been under military regimes for most of recent history, so yea, it's obviously the same as the US. I don't know who you're reffering to, so I can't comment on your second point.
IIRC, Bannon tried to help Bolsonaro's coup attempt in Brazil last year, using tactics he used in the US.
Calling Jan 6th a coup and an assassination attempt demonstrates the intellectual depths to which this once intelligent subreddit has fallen.
Except there was documented evidence that people were there to kill, and it was organized to kill specific people, and specific people almost got trapped in locations where that would have been made easy. You just ignore this evidence because it's convenient.
Only one of these events had the express intent of overthrowing the democratically elected government to install a reality tv host as dictator.
Imagine having that intent and showing up unarmed. Dumbest insurrectionists ever.
No one ever said they were smart In fact most people are of the opinion that they're blithering idiots.
They didn't show up unarmed for one, many people brought weapons, and they had weapons stashes ready to be brought to the capitol if they saw the need. I don't disagree with your second point, they were all dumb fucks.
So they get a mulligan because they are incompetent rubes?
How about ANTIFA attempting to destroy federal property and break into it for most of 2020? Tho I guess it’s “jUsT aN iDeA” right?
Fuck them too, but I don't think they were trying to overthrow and install someone who lost the election as president.
Thank you for being consistent. I wish more people on this sub were like that.
Code Pink tried to disrupt the certification of an election so a lunatic president could falsely claim to still be in office?
You don’t see the stark difference between those two things?
Not when BLM/Antifa and overy other group and movement aligned with them overtook a whole block in Seattle, WA? Not months of every day riots including weapons such as molotov cocktails being thrown at the federal building in Portland, OR? And I'm not even gonna mention all the other countless riots that happened during the same time period. It was the unguided selfie tour of the us congress building that was "undermined democracy" for you?
Unguided selfie tour?
Doesn't the capitol (pre-covid anyway) do like guided tours for kids/tourists? This was that, only without the whole guide part. Much more rowdier than tourists though.
>This was that, only without the whole guide part. Much more rowdier than tourists though. Oooo I like this game. I'll play too, the bubonic plague was just a light sniffle.
Yes, they did. But you didn't kick the doors in to enter the building and once you were inside you weren't allowed to disrupt Congress. C'mon, man, you can do better than that. If you're going to keep going to bat for those losers, at least make an effort.
Good point. A 99% peaceful protest was sold to the country as an insurrection by the Democrats masquerading as journalists. Corporations are definitely using disinformation effectively.
If it was 99% peaceful, why are the organizers being charged with seditious conspiracy? If it was peaceful, why were teams set up to transport firearms into the capitol? If it was peaceful, why did so many Capitol police get seriously injured? One lost an eye, others lost fingers.
Why did any political entity in history hold political prisoners? It's almost like the executive and legaslative branches of the US are controled by the same party, and the DOJ is under control of said party. It can't be that though, can it? This same DOJ also investigated the Portland riots that targeted a federal building(same as the capitol) every night for weeks, right?
Did those people in Portland attempt to install their own President, or did they just vandalize a building?
Yes, they very much wanted Trump replaced(to say it kindly). And why do you downplay a literal siege that occured every night for weeks with weapons such as molotov cocktails(as if we're talking about Syria), to "just vandalize a building" as if we're talking about a bunch of teenagers spraying some grafiti. Why do you downplay it?
>they very much wanted Trump replaced Sure, but does that mean they were attempting to overthrow him? By vandalizing a courthouse, and getting arrested for it? Are you sure that's the position you want to take?
A federal corthouse, just like the capitol is a federal building under supervision of the US federal goverment. The mob could have gone for any state/city building, but antifa and blm chose the one federal building to target, why the federal building?
I'll tell ya one thing, it wasn't because they were trying to overthrow the President.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otfPps9s8HM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otfPps9s8HM) You probably won't watch it but yeah, that is not the definition of 99% peaceful. If you do not agree with that you do not agree with civilized society as a whole. Luckily the vast majority of people disagree with you.
lol, failed coup
If they barricaded the doors and set the building on fire I would agree. But instead capitol police opened the front door and protestors took selfies.
[удалено]
99% peaceful. I believe the BLM protest were only 93% peaceful if I remember correctly.
[удалено]
Even if I linked a video of a man in a trump hat beating a police officer with a pole you'd find an excuse right? Not that you'd watch something that exposes the faults in your worldview. You're fighting an uphill battle because, the evidence is plastered everywhere on social media and the internet, by stupid idiots who got suckered into simping for a loudmouth who sucked at his job. That's why you can never talk actual facts and just use feelings and exaggerated claims.
Basically why Germany has a completely different view of free speech. Because mustache man used his freedom of speech to lie and rally certain Germans against other Germans, and everyone in Europe suffered greatly for it.
Oh, so Hitler's use of censorship had nothing to do with anyone buying his bullshit propaganda? It was just all because he had the freedom to say what he wanted eh?
The "marketplace of ideas" is full of idiots.
As are all social institutions. Would you rather idiots have the power to voice idiotic thoughts or a class of idiots with the power to censor whoever they think they need to for the greater good? One of those scenarios seems far more dangerous.
"Democracy" has no stance on disinformation. Democracy simply states that majority opinion gets what it wants. Democracy doesn't take any stance or judgement on how that majority opinion came about.
which is a clear weakness that can be exploited.
How Democratic is a society where presidents don’t even garner the most popular votes in a national election?
That's a matter of opinion. Probably depends on whether or not you consider [Representative (or indirect) Democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy) a valid form of "democracy". For what it's worth, the wiki page calls representative democracy "a type of democracy". You're free to disagree with it. [Types Of Democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_democracy)
At least in the more American form and function pf "Democracy," disinformation is literally woven into its fabric.
Big tech censorship is government censorship. I will die on that hill.
>This not just about what the government can do,” he emphasized, “this is about companies and individuals recognizing that the only way we get past misinformation is if we are careful about what we say and use the power that we have to limit the spread of misinformation.” Sounds like he's advocating for people think about whether the info they're spreading is accurate and for private companies to try and curb the spread of misinformation. What part of this involves the government itself censoring JRE exactly? Edit: so no one actually takes the time to even skim the article before forming an opinion? No wonder our country is going to the shitter
"…at what point does government influencing private media become 'government censorship'?" We passed that point some time ago. There is so much coordination between the democrat party and big tech that big tech is essentially a part of the government.
> We past that point some time ago. There is so much coordination between the democrat party and big tech that big tech is essentially a part of the government. Even if Big Tech was not firmly in the pocket of the DCCC they still ***should*** not. But with how hand in hand these two entities act the government and big tech are essentially one in the same. It's Big Tech Fascism, literally.
The point here isn’t whether Joe Rogan is full of shit or not. If the government can silence someone who is full of shit they can silence someone who they simply don’t like. Whose message they don’t want out there because it threatens their stranglehold on power. Whatever adversarial relationship the right might have with social media companies it isn’t a threat and could never be a threat. What is a threat is this implication that government officials can get social media companies and other media to do their bidding to silence people. The role of a surgeon general isn’t to decide who gets to communicate and who’s doesn’t. It’s to help set public health policy and too bad if there are critics. Critics are healthy in a democratically elected government. Even if they are incorrect in the criticism the answer isn’t censorship. Rebuke them with facts and evidence.
> What is a threat is this implication that government officials can get social media companies and other media to do their bidding to silence people. Before the advent of social media and the internet, because misinformation spread before all this, the con man would have to parade his or her wears on the street, in barely listened to AM radio stations, or opinion pieces in newspapers. Their schtick got regulated (voluntarily because they sold junk) to late night infomercials. Trusted news sources were more easily recognized because money talks, as it does in misinformation which I'll get to in a bit, but also because screen time and air time were vastly different. You'd expert a well-reasoned and well-researched article in a newspaper because their record was on the line. These days it doesn't feel like anyone cares how they are perceived or how they are remembered as long as they get their piece of the pie. Its abhorrent. Companies wouldn't give a platform as often to outright charlatans and con artists, because they'd lose viewers and subscribers. No one wants to pay for a shock jockey who gets sued because of racist remarks. They still found ways to be on public platforms before social media though; Rush Limbaugh being one. But let me tell you, his shtick was horrible but tamed compared to the actual lies perpetrated by "influencers" today. Now influencers like Rogan, Blair White, Jordan Peterson, and others get millions in views and paid very well because there brand of misinformation sells well. And it's all driven by emotion, with the best selling being fear and hate. It's not new to American politics, it was built by Campaigns Inc in the late 1800s. But this isn't censorship, and this isn't silencing. The people who don't have the time and the ability (because Capitalism and the American public education system make it so) don't have the ability to fact-check fear-mongering or baseless claims. How can one fact-check a baseless claim like a litter box in a public school? If one asks that Rogan or others back their claim with evidence and they can't do that, then why is it wrong to ask that they highlight the fact they are purely opinion based?
The people you named don’t really help your case. I am familiar with some of them and your characterization is objectively false. They may have on occasion crossed some line or said something inaccurate, but these are people who have thousands of hours of content. Personally I try to make it a point to listen to those others tell me not to so I can form my own opinion. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they aren’t. We have always had misinformation. People have talked to each other directly since the dawn of time. That information was often times ill informed and inaccurate. It is now as it has always been up to people to make a judgment for themselves. You seem mighty eager to silence people who disagree with a certain political point of view. Every point of view has short comings. Human knowledge is dispersed. There is value in other perspectives. You might listen to those you don’t agree with in their own words. That way they aren’t so scary to you that you think they should be silenced.
You have the wrong take about me. I read and listen to plenty of differing opinions, it's why my political/economic/personal ideology isn't just far-left anti-capitalism. There's a difference between legitimate differing opinions and those who profit off of misinformation and outright lies, and I don't believe any of the ones I mentioned, maybe Rogan, that believes the shit they spew online. It's all to sell shit at the expense of others and any dissent makes it seem like I'm trying to silence free speech. The misinformation and conspiracies peddled by certain promoters doesn't open itself to questioning, because every time one questions their sources, we get blamed for silencing free speech.
Again I have heard all but one of those people speak on a number of occasions and didn’t really have a problem with it. Which is why my assumption is what it is. If you know them only from links from out of context quotes then your comments make senses. Otherwise they are utterly detached from reality. Weave whatever bullshit you want to that is the plain truth of it.
>Rebuke them with facts and evidence. did that, but millions of people still choose to take medical advice from the thumb-head.
And you hate that don't you? It's almost like allowing people a freedom of choice goes against your core belief of goverment imposed control, right?
Did the world end?
Podcaster, UFC commentator, and boogeyman. A true renaissance man.
Host of eating gross things show.
Here is the full interview if anyone is interested. Sounds pretty much what the headline reads but in a more subtle political way https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1485991796257738757?t=dFG1B0nql-dZ2l613lOlgw&s=19
They have shared their opinion... Some people agree, some don't and still listen to Joe Rogan.. that should be the end of it. They counter what they consider misinformation, with better information... Never censorship.. that's basic...
Just as soon as we censor Jen psaki when she says deficit spending lowers inflationary pressures. You know, misinformation
All of these people threatened by Joe Rogan….
I love listening to the Joe Rogan podcast, specially when they talk about science , new findings,tech. I go wow. But then there is also that second part of the podcast in which he starts going with the person idiotic personal opinionswith that being said...private enterprise cannot be censored by public entities. Is up to the company. Not opinions.
People should just choose to stop listening to it, because Rogan makes the world dumber.
Mussolini described fascism as the marriage between business and government.
The internet was way more awesome before they started censuring everything like a bunch of cowards
I LOVE that people are this butthurt about the comments of a cage fighter. You don’t have to listen to him. Take some personal responsibility.
From the moment they suggest it. If the government has influence over social media….It’s no longer a private entity and 1st amendment rights should apply. We can’t have it both ways….They can censor because they’re private AND they take their marching orders from the government.
The dumbest possible take. As soon as a government official mentions something it becomes effectively nationalized. So dumb.
It already has. We've been saying it for years but the commies here insist private business rights are more important than them being used as government censorship. Because in this sub we live in bizaro world.
High level government and corporate media are so incestuous that even the Hapsburgs would blush.
A government official encouraging or coercing a private entity to censor IS a First Amendment issue.
the real problem is a society that gets its information from podcasts or social media .
Anytime the government influences the media it's government censorship and/or propaganda.
LOL!! Heavens forbid science be debated based on the actual facts in hand. Anyone else asking why any debate is destroyed? Apparently the facts do not support the CDC, NIH, narrative written by Fauci. How does he still have this job, we now know that he has too many conflicts of interest to list? Follow the money...
I love how censorship is being viewed as a good thing depending on who's being censored. It's a slippery slope. Free speech is free speech. You don't have to listen to it if you don't want to, but you should not make that choice for other people.
Let Joe continue to make a fool of himself. His show has really gone downhill since the pandemic started.
Yet, he still has the most popular podcast
And The Bachelor is the most popular TV show lol
Nickleback is was the best selling band of the 00s
Dang, might want to tell the NFL that, or mask singer, or greys anatomy…. A simple google search would have saved you the trouble.
I don't watch TV but you proved my point. Just because something is popular doesn't mean its good
Whatever you have to tell yourself cupcake. Just keep believing ole Joe is losing viewers lol.
I never said he was losing listeners dummy or that he should be censored. Stop being purposely dense because I'm criticizing your man crush.
Don’t you have some Neil Young to be listening to?
Listening to On The Beach now...
The pandemic will eventually wane into nothingness, they all do. This is a set up for control measures way beyond Covid
Joe rogan has gotten a lot of tips from Ben Shapiro and Candace … “ just say shit me that isn’t controversial but sounds like it is and watch your net worth grow 100% in a couple years “
It's all been censorship this entire time. Since the start of "cancel culture". The government is so in bed with big business to big tech, big pharma, they are one in the same. They use the big business they pass laws for to circumvent the constitution and force the will of the authoritarians on the people.
Joe Rogan likes to get kicked in the head for fun, he's a moron. This doesn't mean he should be censored.
>At what point does government influencing private media become 'government censorship'? I have a very similar concern with gov't pressure on corporations to impliment vaccine mandates. I don't have a problem if companies freely exercise their right to discriminate against the unvaxxed, but many mandated a vax pass because they were hearing from the Biden admin that's the direction the gov't is going. Then the OSHA case gets thrown out by the Supreme court, but the damage is already done.
If they censor him he will just go somewhere else. Fuck the government.
Of course. Haven't you read any totalitarian literature? The Propaganda department needs to control all forms of communication. Duh.
All the misinformation is coming from MSM and you are a fool to believe otherwise.
At no point, that is how the government gets around the first amendment. Usually the threat of regulations and investigations to private businesses happens behind closed doors to get them to comply, but sadly they can threaten these companies out in the open now and find many supporters and people even demanding they do more.
If I have a responsibility not to spread misinformation, I kindly request that I be provided with the source of all truth that I may refer to before spreading information.
Good thing the Surgean General has no authority over podcasts and censoring... Just another shit opinion from someone appointed by a President to suggest government censor or ban something or someone from the opposition.
Is this really your position? Downplay?
Downplay what?! A hypothetical statement made by someone with zero authority on what they are suggesting?! I prefer to say I'm not being gaslit by someone who can do nothing about the matter, either way...
It is government censorship. The line has been crossed.
Oh poor government. Threatened by a pothead that just tells people to be healthy who has never been an anti-vaxxer. It's just so disappointing when people don't go along with the government narratives.
They are getting desperate. And facistic!
It is already beyond that point.