Should PF mods be responsible for stopping COVID misinformation?<<MOD WARNING>>

Nope it was real

Because it was real

because it was not fake news

You mean like things that are true rather than fake?

if it is a crime report it[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

Publications don't stop being private property just because they are available for the public to read.

Another homework fail. No, that isn't what 230 is actually about. 230 is actually about people not being responsible for the content that others produce.

Complete nonsense.

Your strange, Marxist logic aside, it is still private property.

Nah, I'm actually capable of some basic homework and rising above your unfounded, collectivist, anti-private property assertions.

 

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Perhaps you and yardmeat could get on the same page, given his statement in the responding post.. but hey, you tried...

 

Perhaps you could come to grips on private property instead of making the fringe, far-left argument that private property becomes publicly owned the moment it becomes popular. I can't honestly conclude that with saying you've tried.

 

Hmm, I was wrong, these are too much for you. My bad. The premise and why 230 protects FB, Google, Twitter, et al is because they establish the zone of the public square. What is private property is the proprietary delivery and services. Nothing more. The space itself is still regulated in a manner befitting the public square. I get you don't understand the difference here. It means that no matter what is produced in the public square, has the same 1rst amendment prescriptions as the public square. And when the public square can contain any opinion, vice adjudicated limitations, the protection is provided to the platform because the content wasn't of their curation. The thing you seem to be flailing over is that once the public square in fact isn't public, and it becomes curated, it becomes a work of publishing, not a public square. And 230 should no longer apply given the editorial content of the platform. But nice to know you literally don't understand freedom.

 

Since i haven't asserted that, your response is baseless. It does, though, clearly illustrate my point that you don't understand what a public square reservation is. It is the foundation of the protections 230 protects the FBs, Googles, et all from ownership of the content produced. Oh, but here's the other thing that you might want to understand. Posting on those sites does, in fact, until the passage of GDPR become the property of the platform, which you consented to in the ToS. But hey, this inter webs thing is hard huh.....

 

It isn't about "the public square." 230 protects them because it acknowledges that they don't product the content. They are still responsible for content that they DO produce. No, their private property is not, and should not be, "regulated in a manner befitting the public square" because, contrary to your quasi-Marxist position, they are not public property. But thank you for demonstrating your hatred for actual freedom in favor of government takeover.

 

You wrote it. They didn't. That's the whole reasoning. Until you are capable of understanding that, you have no business criticizing the understanding of others. I'm sorry that your Marxist dreams are unlikely to become reality.

 

Ok, I'm just going to laugh. Because you literally don't know anything about the topic. As you so often suggest, do some research. Then get back with us.

 

Just more ad homs. Got it. And funny that someone as far left leaning as yourself would suggest this concept of the pubic square is marxist.....

 

I'm to the right of you on economics, bud. I can promise I've spilled more ink criticizing Marxism than you have. It was part of my graduate work.

 

I have researched this. You should try doing the same. 230 is based on the fact that they are not the originators of said content. This ain't rocket surgery.

 

Isn't that just the same thing as my proposal?

How is god handling all the COVID misinformation out there?
"In the United States, the survey finds that Bill Gates is more frequently criticized by younger than by older Americans. In response to one of the survey’s items, “Bill Gates, one of the richest men in the world, is actually to blame for the corona crisis. He is using the crisis to set up a new world order,” one in eight Americans under the age of 30 agrees, compared with only one in twenty-five Americans over the age of 60."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rainer...lieve-in-conspiracy-theories/?sh=25a3838e5e94

How is a poster's ignorance justification for making a thread? Do you make threads extolling the scientific insight of 2+2=5? The moderators already regulate us and make sure that we follow their rules and we accept them. It's why we can't speak another language, we have to speak the same language. Without that common ground discussion is useless. All I'm saying is that common ground should extend to engaging in scientific facts about COVID.

That's fair. My solution to that problem would be the mods using some sort of standard from which to judge sources. If a source is on youtube and the source has grainy footage and no way to confirm their sources? Just add an UNSUBTANTIATED in the title. If it comes from an official government document and you can find that document, call it SUBSTANTIATED. Nothing major. Just some common tools that any librarian would recommend when vetting internet sources. This is exactly what I tell my students, so it's not uncommon. It just forces people to elevate themselves to a higher standard of proof.

You can't debate an issue without common ground. It's impossible. All I'm saying is let's encourage people to engage in meaningful discussion using legititmate sources.

Also the irony of your statement? Clearly unnoticed.

Get sources on them, and then tell me. Do they might the high standard of "hey give me a source you want me to check before making your claims and acting on them"? It's mostly due to politeness. It's just polite to cite your sources.

Why not?

WHY NOT?

 

Just clarifying that it would be nice for the mods to take such measures, but it shouldn't be a legal matter. Not saying that's what you were proposing, just clarifying my position on the question.

 

Understood, thank you!

 

And apologies for any distractions. I was probably projecting some stuff based on previous forum conversations.

 

No, you're fine! I appreciate your insight. I don't really know a lot about this stuff but I figured I would ask the question. Feel free to keep talking if you want to.

 

YES

We need more moderator censorship at PF
It's for our own protection.

 

Yes, it is. Good point.

 

Meaning no offence to the Mods, they are not qualified to know what is true and what isn't with respect to a virus or vaccine. They do a fine job trying to keep this place respectful - let's just keep it at that. Unless, of course, there are some member scientists well versed in the area that wants to step up...

 

Freedom of speech.

This is not science, but (incorrect) mathematics.

Yes. It is their forum so they set the rules for any users of it to follow.

Yup. I do believe that speaking English is one of the rules of this forum (if I remember correctly... I do participate on numerous forums with numerous differing sets of rules). Unfortunately, a lot of people are not proficient in English. Instead, they speak a language that I call Liberal. It is much like English, except that in Liberal words seem to have the ability to change meaning on a whim or hold no meaning at all, context doesn't matter, etymology doesn't matter, etc...

... and this is what I mean... Hardly anybody I correspond with even knows what a fact is anymore. The word fact is defined by logic. A fact is NOT a universal truth nor is it a proof, nor is there anything "scientific" about a fact. That's another thing worth mentioning. People LOVE to use the word "scientific" as a word modifier, and many times it isn't even applicable as a modifier of the word that they are attempting to modify, but I digress.

A fact, as defined by logic, is simply an assumed predicate. Nothing more/nothing less. Let's use "the Earth is warming" as an example. If both you and I were to accept that predicate as True, then between the two of us, "the Earth is warming" would be a fact rather than an argument. Of course, that predicate could very well be blatantly false (or even unknowable), but the both of us would have no need to form arguments about it if we both agreed on that point (in other words, it would be an "assumed predicate"). If we disagreed about it, then it would no longer be a fact and would return to being an argument.

That's what facts are and how they work. They have nothing to do with science and are not "scientific" in any way. Facts are, rather, a part of logic.

 

What good is freedom of speech if you can't agree to common ground ideas?

I have two words for you: Logistic Regression.

Then how can this be a freedom of speech problem, if freedom of speech doesn't exist here? It's conditional freedom of speech. Big difference.

I speak academic. It's really stuffy but it has lots of technical points that because are in place progress can be made, rather than being stuck in the mud by having to explain the same points again and again. It's very helpful for discussion if you agree on certain ideas.

No, please go on. I want to hear how you argue facts are just logic constrained by cultural meanings. Please. Go on. Like I haven't heard this 10 times in 10x better ways. I'm sure you will get at some divinely inspired answer soon. Or is that just some word modifier too?

Only if the minimalists are right. I personally prefer coherence theories of truth. Much better at explaining things like truth statements without language. But then again this is off topic. I'm talking about scientific facts, not truth values. Very different concepts.

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA. I needed that laugh. Thank you.

Oh. You were serious. I'm sorry. I just can't that seriously. At all. I

 

"Why?" would be a better question, but here are the most obvious reasons why they should not:

1) The moderators' job is to MODERATE, not to censor or make purely subjective calls concerning the accuracy of information.

2) We're all supposed to be competent adults here. We can assess and decide for ourselves whether information is accurate or not.

 

1. Moderating is a form of censorship. A moderator's job is to stop people from saying or doing things that stop the debate from happening.
2. Unless of course people have agendas and want to sow confusion, or make statements not because they're true but because they rest on ideologically premises, rather than factual.

 

Without freedom of speech, knowledge would be limited.

Incomplete thought. What about it?

Freedom of speech exists here, however, that is not a freedom from consequences.

Mockery is not an argument.

As I have already explained to you, there is no such thing as a "scientific fact". It makes no sense, in the English language, to modify the word 'fact' with the word 'scientific', since facts are a function of logic, not of science. At this point, you are speaking in another language (Liberal? Jabberwocky?)

Argument of the Stone Fallacy (dismissing an argument without counterargument). Laughing at my argument does not logically address it.