5 ms·

What are those things? Googling didn’t help.

by cookingrobot 3mo ago

panny 3mo ago
[flagged]
- ToucanLoucan 3mo ago
  So a real thing that people actually made to accomplish something and a fake thing you made up in your head to be angry about.
  - jMyles 3mo ago
    Although I agree that ICE block and its various sibling apps and spinoffs are important and do accomplish something meaningful, it's certainly not a "fake thing" that many of the world's foremost experts on the relevant topics were censored with regard to epidemic response. Facebook's treatment of the BMJ investigation of the unblinding of the Pfizer trial (which of course, turned out to be spot-on) was absolutely shocking, and is just one of the many instances of "ICE block-level" censorship. (In case you need a refresher on the Facebook-censors-BMJ drama, I summarized it a few months ago here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46232902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46232902 )
    - deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
  - panny 3mo ago
    The revolving door of corruption between the FDA and Pharma industry is pretty well documented. But it looks like my speech freedom is going to cost me some more karma. Darned consequences of speech freedom are at it again.
    - ToucanLoucan 3mo ago
      Firstly, freedom of speech does not guarantee you freedom from consequences of your speech. The government can't stop you from saying stupid shit, however it also can't stop other people from telling you you're stupid. Second, horse dewormer doesn't cure COVID. Censoring dangerous misinformation from fools like yourself who will believe it because it's given to them via the right mouthpiece is a good idea, because if you don't, then you end up with fools like yourself, years after the fact, still regurgitating it.
      - carlosjobim 3mo ago
        > Firstly, freedom of speech does not guarantee you freedom from consequences of your speech. It really does, that's the entire point. If you go find somebody and physically attack them for what they've written on HN about for example medicine, that makes you the law-breaker. I understand from the way you write that you might consider it your right to do such things to other people who don't have the same opinions as you, but freedom of speech protects them against retribution from you or anybody else, including from the government.
        ToucanLoucan 3mo ago
        > It really does, that's the entire point. If you go find somebody and physically attack them for what they've written on HN about for example medicine, that makes you the law-breaker. Yeah if I did this thing you completely made up, that would be illegal. Just like if the parent commenter was imprisoned for the post he made, that would also be illegal. Have you considered basing your politics on real things? > I understand from the way you write that you might consider it your right to do such things to other people who don't have the same opinions as you, Oh don't flatter yourselves. I have no interest at all in going to prison for slapping the shit out of COVID deniers. I'll happily tell you you're wrong though. > but freedom of speech protects them against retribution from you or anybody else, including from the government. Correct, but it doesn't protect them from social consequences, in this case getting downvoted, which is what they were pissing and moaning about.
        3mo ago
  - khazhoux 3mo ago
    IIRC any FB post claiming that the Wuhan coronavirus originated in the Wuhan coronavirus lab, would be removed and could result in user ban, at request of the federal government.
    - ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
      That was true for a period of time. Something like a couple months if I remember right.
    - platevoltage 3mo ago
      What were the consequences for this "request" not being implemented?
  - sellmesoap 3mo ago
    ^^^ Proof that IVM block was very effective!
- verall 3mo ago
  Are you suggesting ivermectin was a safe and effective enough treatment for COVID that it would obviate the need for the vaccine?
- triceratops 3mo ago
  > Biden administration doing everything in their power to block discussion of a safe and effective treatment for Covid I've seen it discussed half a million times. > spoil their giant investments in those pharma companies. Whose investments?
belorn 3mo ago
The later is the case that then supreme court ruled on in 2024 (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c100l6jrjvno https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c100l6jrjvno). I suspect it goes to explain why this new bill is bipartisan. That case failed because the plaintiffs did not have a legal standing to sue. "In a dissent that detailed emails, press conferences, and past decisions, Justice Alito painted the "jawboning" as "blatantly unconstitutional". Wednesday's ruling, he wrote, "permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think"." Regardless if one agree with them, it do demonstrate that conservative side think that there is a risk that governments will attempt to persuade platforms to moderate content, and that this is a risk. This new bill seem to make it much easier to give people a legal standing to sue, thus allowing the supreme court to give a different verdict if a similar situation happen again.
- hn_acker 3mo ago
  > The later is the case that then supreme court ruled on in 2024 (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c100l6jrjvno https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c100l6jrjvno). > I suspect it goes to explain why this new bill is bipartisan. That case failed because the plaintiffs did not have a legal standing to sue. In that case (Murthy v. Missouri), Missouri and Louisiana did not have standing to sue because they did not demonstrate a minimum of evidence that the government coerced (as opposed to requested) platforms to remove speech. > This new bill seem to make it much easier to give people a legal standing to sue, thus allowing the supreme court to give a different verdict if a similar situation happen again. The lack of standing was not due to something like "no law says you can sue for such a violation". This law solves a problem that courts did not consider in Murthy v. Missouri.

What are those things? Googling didn’t help.

panny 3mo ago

[flagged]

ToucanLoucan 3mo ago
So a real thing that people actually made to accomplish something and a fake thing you made up in your head to be angry about.
- jMyles 3mo ago
  Although I agree that ICE block and its various sibling apps and spinoffs are important and do accomplish something meaningful, it's certainly not a "fake thing" that many of the world's foremost experts on the relevant topics were censored with regard to epidemic response. Facebook's treatment of the BMJ investigation of the unblinding of the Pfizer trial (which of course, turned out to be spot-on) was absolutely shocking, and is just one of the many instances of "ICE block-level" censorship. (In case you need a refresher on the Facebook-censors-BMJ drama, I summarized it a few months ago here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46232902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46232902 )
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
- panny 3mo ago
  The revolving door of corruption between the FDA and Pharma industry is pretty well documented. But it looks like my speech freedom is going to cost me some more karma. Darned consequences of speech freedom are at it again.
  - ToucanLoucan 3mo ago
    Firstly, freedom of speech does not guarantee you freedom from consequences of your speech. The government can't stop you from saying stupid shit, however it also can't stop other people from telling you you're stupid. Second, horse dewormer doesn't cure COVID. Censoring dangerous misinformation from fools like yourself who will believe it because it's given to them via the right mouthpiece is a good idea, because if you don't, then you end up with fools like yourself, years after the fact, still regurgitating it.
    - carlosjobim 3mo ago
      > Firstly, freedom of speech does not guarantee you freedom from consequences of your speech. It really does, that's the entire point. If you go find somebody and physically attack them for what they've written on HN about for example medicine, that makes you the law-breaker. I understand from the way you write that you might consider it your right to do such things to other people who don't have the same opinions as you, but freedom of speech protects them against retribution from you or anybody else, including from the government.
      - ToucanLoucan 3mo ago
        > It really does, that's the entire point. If you go find somebody and physically attack them for what they've written on HN about for example medicine, that makes you the law-breaker. Yeah if I did this thing you completely made up, that would be illegal. Just like if the parent commenter was imprisoned for the post he made, that would also be illegal. Have you considered basing your politics on real things? > I understand from the way you write that you might consider it your right to do such things to other people who don't have the same opinions as you, Oh don't flatter yourselves. I have no interest at all in going to prison for slapping the shit out of COVID deniers. I'll happily tell you you're wrong though. > but freedom of speech protects them against retribution from you or anybody else, including from the government. Correct, but it doesn't protect them from social consequences, in this case getting downvoted, which is what they were pissing and moaning about.
        3mo ago
- khazhoux 3mo ago
  IIRC any FB post claiming that the Wuhan coronavirus originated in the Wuhan coronavirus lab, would be removed and could result in user ban, at request of the federal government.
  - ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
    That was true for a period of time. Something like a couple months if I remember right.
  - platevoltage 3mo ago
    What were the consequences for this "request" not being implemented?
- sellmesoap 3mo ago
  ^^^ Proof that IVM block was very effective!
verall 3mo ago
Are you suggesting ivermectin was a safe and effective enough treatment for COVID that it would obviate the need for the vaccine?
triceratops 3mo ago
> Biden administration doing everything in their power to block discussion of a safe and effective treatment for Covid I've seen it discussed half a million times. > spoil their giant investments in those pharma companies. Whose investments?

belorn 3mo ago

The later is the case that then supreme court ruled on in 2024 (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c100l6jrjvno https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c100l6jrjvno). I suspect it goes to explain why this new bill is bipartisan. That case failed because the plaintiffs did not have a legal standing to sue. "In a dissent that detailed emails, press conferences, and past decisions, Justice Alito painted the "jawboning" as "blatantly unconstitutional". Wednesday's ruling, he wrote, "permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think"." Regardless if one agree with them, it do demonstrate that conservative side think that there is a risk that governments will attempt to persuade platforms to moderate content, and that this is a risk. This new bill seem to make it much easier to give people a legal standing to sue, thus allowing the supreme court to give a different verdict if a similar situation happen again.

hn_acker 3mo ago
> The later is the case that then supreme court ruled on in 2024 (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c100l6jrjvno https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c100l6jrjvno). > I suspect it goes to explain why this new bill is bipartisan. That case failed because the plaintiffs did not have a legal standing to sue. In that case (Murthy v. Missouri), Missouri and Louisiana did not have standing to sue because they did not demonstrate a minimum of evidence that the government coerced (as opposed to requested) platforms to remove speech. > This new bill seem to make it much easier to give people a legal standing to sue, thus allowing the supreme court to give a different verdict if a similar situation happen again. The lack of standing was not due to something like "no law says you can sue for such a violation". This law solves a problem that courts did not consider in Murthy v. Missouri.