A federal judge yesterday ordered the Biden administration to halt a wide range of communications with social media companies, siding with Missouri and Louisiana in a lawsuit that alleges Biden and his administration violated the First Amendment by colluding with social networks “to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content.”

        • effingjoe@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          • C4RP3_N0CT3M@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

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

    • snipgan@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      1 year ago

      Almost all those things haven’t been proven true or accepted by most experts. Stop lying.
      Asking questions is fine to inform yourself. Asking questions to purposely push a narrative isn’t

    • czech@no.faux.moe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      Was it antiscience to say covid originated in a lab in China?

      ok, sure.

      Was it antiscience to say 2 weeks to flatten the curve was BS?

      That was contingent on half the population not making it their identity to spread disease.

      Was it antiscience to say cloth masks were ineffective?

      Yes, it’s been proven time and time again that cloth masks reduce transmission and severity.

      Was it antiscience to question the long term efficacy of a drug that was not studied for the long term?

      Yes, it is antiscience for laymen to question things they don’t understand at all.

      Was it antiscience to question the long term side effects of a drug that was not studied for the long term?

      Same.

      Started out pretty good though!

    • orcrist@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nobody is “begrudgingly” accepting scientific results. But you want to tell that story, right? You’re looking for an “us vs. them” situation, but that’s not how science works.

      Also, I think some of your facts are not actually facts.

      Finally, a question itself is not “anti-science”. How could it be? However, if you’re using a question as a smokescreen to confuse readers or viewers to push your selfish political agenda, that would be shady politics, and it would have nothing to do with science at all.

      • C4RP3_N0CT3M@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        There were many scientists that were saying we should investigate the lab origin. They were all silenced, including the CDC director at the time.

          • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            And even if this is true, what does investigating a lab leak do to stop the spread of a virus actively working its way through the population?

            • C4RP3_N0CT3M@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not worried about that question, I’m worried about the ability of government to silence people simply for disagreeing with them.

              • CarlsIII@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                If people making the lab leak claim were silenced, why the hell can I not stop hearing about it?!

                • C4RP3_N0CT3M@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Are you claiming that the FBI didn’t force social media platforms to censor information that it had deemed misinformation?

              • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                What simple disagreement are you referring to exactly? Everything you’ve mentioned has been pretty clear disinformation that lead to people dying not simple disagreements.

                  • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Yeah okay, bud. You’re obviously trying to spread your own disinformation now as if we can’t see a written record of your comments elsewhere in this post.

    • djgb@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      Was it antiscience to say covid originated in a lab in China?
      YES, there was little evidence AND there still isn’t conclusive evidence that it was. They just used it as a reason to be racist toward Asian (and it did provably increase hate crime toward Asian people).

      Was it antiscience to say 2 weeks to flatten the curve was BS?
      YES, if people would have actually isolated, we would have had far fewer cases shortly after.

      Was it antiscience to say cloth masks were ineffective?
      YES, they are still effective and far better than not wearing a mask at all.

      Was it antiscience to question the long term efficacy/long term side effects (I’m combining 2 questions here) of a drug that was not studied for the long term?
      YES, the vaccine was not given to people widespread until after thorough testing. It’s fact that almost any vaccine side effect will occur within the first few weeks of it being administered. There was also information and testing about the efficacy before it was widely distributed.

      People questioning this stuff were given the answers by scientists, specialists, people with knowledge, and they outright denied the truth of the data. It’s one thing to question, it’s another thing to yell questions into the void and pretend you don’t hear the answers.

    • knoland@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      To say, as in to state as fact, yes.

      To question, no.

      There’s a wide gap between “covid originated in a lab” and “covid could have originated in a lab”.

    • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Was it antiscience to say covid originated in a lab in China?

      Yes. It would be accurate to say that it is possible that the Covid originated in a lab in China, but the evidence is mixed and it is certainly not provided.

      Was it antiscience to say 2 weeks to flatten the curve was BS?

      No idea, because I don’t know who you claimed to say it, when they said it or in which county

      Was it antiscience to say cloth masks were ineffective?

      Yes - because it’s much too simplistic. Depending on the design of the mask, the material and how it was warn cloth masks certainly had an effect on reducing infection - in particular infected mask wearers are less likely to infect others

      Was it antiscience to question the long term efficacy of a drug that was not studied for the long term?

      No - and questions about long-term efficacy were front and centre of studies into how long (for example) vaccines shots lasted. The point was that even short - term efficacy was pretty useful.

      Was it antiscience to question the long term side effects of a drug that was not studied for the long term?

      No. It’s absolutely scientific to ask questions about it. It is is anti-science tio make stuff up about probable long-term effects when the mechanism of the drug are pretty well understood.

      At one point or another every one of those questions was considered antiscience and is now begrudgingly accepted by the experts.

      Some of them are “anti-science”, some aren’t. I’m not quite sure what point you are trying to make, other than “Experts bad”

    • barf@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Who gives a shit, frankly. The first amendment is the first amendment, science or anti-science or anything in between. Whether or not I agree with anything in your comment.

      • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is extremely good news for foreign state-run disinformation farms, or domestic terrorists who want to spread disinformation or panic. “Go for it”.

      • czech@no.faux.moe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you understand why you can’t yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater? Do you think that’s a violation of your first amendment rights?

          • czech@no.faux.moe
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sorry I didn’t flesh it out… Falsely yelling “fire” is not inherently illegal unless someone gets injured as a result. Millions of people died due to vaccine misinformation spread on social media.

            • barf@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              At least millions, and that’s just COVID!

              But the speech is still legal and protected. Maybe there should be more restrictions about these things, but that’s a case that should be argued in public and implemented the official way. Personally I think not, and instead we should be focusing on restricting the things that allow those ridiculous people making false claims to find the other ridiculous people that believe them.

              Just imagine what Trump could have done during the worst of COVID with the power to restrict speech deemed untrue in the dark and without oversight.

      • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you extend the same to lies or threats? If I claimed your computer is full of CP would you still support me?

        I personally think this is a brain-dead approach akin to the many “zero tolerance” laws that only exist to remove thought from the equation. “Yes Billy, you may not have actually thrown any punches but we’re suspending you from school for getting beat up by that bully because you were a participant in the fight.”

        • barf@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s brain dead to respect the law? Are you drawing a line between what I said and some idea of unlimited free speech? If so, that’s not my stance.

          Edit: also half the things you said would be illegal, so no I wouldn’t support you

          • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The first amendment is the first amendment, science or anti-science or anything in between. Whether or not I agree with anything in your comment.

            What else is there to take from this? Sounds like the typical “unlimited free speech” argument that we’ve all heard before.

            If you want to argue about the law, the legality of this action has yet to be determined, so I’m assuming you must be in support of it, no? What is your stance if you think there’s confusion on my part about what that may be.

            Lies and threats may be illegal but they violate the idea of free speech, so why do you support these restrictions on the first amendment and not others?

            • barf@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lies and threats may be illegal but they violate the idea of free speech, so why do you support these restrictions on the first amendment and not others?

              Because they’re laws the we have as a society agreed upon and put into place. Pretty simple stuff. I do not understand how thinking that the law should be followed is such a wild idea.

              If we want vaccine misinformation to be illegal, we should pass a law. Otherwise, the first amendment stands. What’s so weird about that?

    • Ragnell@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I just want to point out that your very first question is irrelevant to the rest. Whereever it originated, we needed to stop the spread but propagandists got hold of people through paranoia and pushed them to behave in ways that INCREASED the spread, and it started with stuff like the first question.

    • HopingForBetter@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly! We’re just asking questions! Like how many shots does it take to induce fetal-alcohol syndrom? Because your mom DEFINITELY knows the answer. And when will these WOKE folks (hehe, rhyme time) stop being so persistant with their knowledge and science and let us just say the stupid shit we think of on the spot? Also, why are you allowed to speak if there is a god? The world may never know, but penis. (( | )) B:::::::::D—~~~ (GET IT? BUTT PENIS!) i’M jUsT aSkInG QuEsTiOnS!