Covideos

[percho]

Do all of you realize they had the vaccine 7 days before the first reported case in the US?

It took them 2 days to develop the vaccine.



The 35-year-old scientist who led Moderna's efforts to create a COVID-19 vaccine - ABC News (go.com)

 

[percho]

How do you feel about that?

 

[percho]

Let's get rich.

Pfizer Execs:"There is a 'Significant Opportunity' to Hike Prices (bitchute.com)

 

[percho]

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

 

[JonC]

Then they're rewarded for their foolishness. The First Amendment applies to all, or no one.

The first ammendment applies to free spewing public settings. All of those social media formats I listed are private. You have to be a member to post. I can post on none of them.

The first ammendment does not apply.

 

[JonC]

Again, it depends on how much control the private company holds over the general public.

Apples and oranges. The BB is not a service provider. Even so, how much power does the BB wield over the general public?

They have no control except what individuals gives them. They will no control over the public at all.

Your argument also works against you. If you consider these private companies as news organizations influencing the public then they are responsible to discriminate against conspiracy theories. News outlets are not outlets for free speech.

 

[just-want-peace]

All these points made, both positive AND negative are valid, BUT IMHO, my sig line from John Adams sums it all up! We ceased meeting his criteria quite a while ago!!

 

[Aaron]

They have no control except what individuals gives them. They will no control over the public at all.

Your argument also works against you. If you consider these private companies as news organizations influencing the public then they are responsible to discriminate against conspiracy theories. News outlets are not outlets for free speech.

Can the phone companies ban certain news organizatons from their wires if they don't like their content? The phone companies aren't news outlets either, and they're privately owned. Let's say they start. Would that be an abridgement of the freedom of the press? Who says the NYT has the right to force AT&T to disseminate its 'news'?

Private ownership is not sacrosanct when the general public is invited to use said property it and the becomes a main conduit of societal interaction. You don't get to manipulate your ownership and the power thereof to disrupt a free society.

Those will be the questions decided in court cases to come.

 

[Aaron]

The first ammendment applies to free spewing public settings. All of those social media formats I listed are private. You have to be a member to post. I can post on none of them.

The first ammendment does not apply.

k

 

[JonC]

Can the phone companies ban certain news organizatons from their wires if they don't like their content? The phone companies aren't news outlets either, and they're privately owned. Let's say they start. Would that be an abridgement of the freedom of the press? Who says the NYT has the right to force AT&T to disseminate its 'news'?

Private ownership is not sacrosanct when the general public is invited to use said property it and the becomes a main conduit of societal interaction. You don't get to manipulate your ownership and the power thereof to disrupt a free society.

Those will be the questions decided in court cases to come.

Apples and oranges. All of those private companies are more like news outlets than they are phone companies. If you and I call one another we are not engaging in a public platform for the world.

The NYT should not have the right to force AT&T to disseminate its news. And the conspiracy doc has no right to force YouTube to carry his content. We are not communists, after all (borrowing from The Godfather).

 

[Baptist Believer]

I'm embarrassed that you're a Baptist.

That's nothing new. Baptists have often been embarrassed by each other.

 

[Baptist Believer]

If kooks don't have the freedom of speech, then neither does anyone else.
Youtube was and is taking down videos from respected, hitherto unimpeachable medical doctors for saying things that didn't fit the Leftist narratives.

Actually, they were giving medical advice well outside their area of specialization, meaning that they were using their medical credentials as their authority to push bad information.

This happens all the time in popular discourse. A distinguished professor in one field will make a claim about something in another field and those who hear what they want to hear will accept an unqualified viewpoint based on the false authority of the professor.

For instance, Dr. Richard Dawkins is a world-class biologist, but he doesn't know beans about theology, philosophy, or what Christianity claims and teaches. But he makes claims against Christianity based upon his reputation in biology. Many people accept what he says, simply because he is an expert in biology.

 

[Aaron]

Actually, they were giving medical advice well outside their area of specialization, meaning that they were using their medical credentials as their authority to push bad information.

Like Fauci.

And you're full of baloney. I was speaking of epidemiologists.

 

[Aaron]

Apples and oranges. All of those private companies are more like news outlets than they are phone companies. If you and I call one another we are not engaging in a public platform for the world.

Try to stay on topic. Your premise is that the rights of private owners trump the rights of those using their property. The question here is, can AT&T listen in to your and my conversation if it chooses? It is, after all their network. And if AT&T doesn't like what we're saying, can they disconnect us and refund us for the call? And if your answer is 'no,' then you have to explain why our rights prevail in this case.

 

[percho]

The first ammendment applies to free spewing public settings. All of those social media formats I listed are private. You have to be a member to post. I can post on none of them.

The first ammendment does not apply.

Did they inviting the public to register on their platform without telling the public that you can not post on our platform if your political vies of the world is different from mine? Ans without publishing exactly what their view of the world to be?

Do you believe or not believe their control of their platform greatly influenced the 2020 Presidential election and you believe that it should be legal for them to greatly influence an election by what is posted and or not posted on their platform.

Are they along a monopoly of information relative to social (PUBLIC) media.


Where do you believe everyone under the age of 35 receive their information. Even the information of their vote?

 

[JonC]

Try to stay on topic. Your premise is that the rights of private owners trump the rights of those using their property. The question here is, can AT&T listen in to your and my conversation if it chooses? It is, after all their network. And if AT&T doesn't like what we're saying, can they disconnect us and refund us the call? And if your answer is 'no,' then you have to explain why our rights prevail in this case.

No. My premis is the government should not force private businesses to be a platform for things the owners of those businesses oppose. The only except is when it comes to areas where there is only one or two of those businesses and the business is a necessity.

YouTube is not a public platform (those who post on YouTube are members who sign an agreement of use). YouTube is only one platform of hundreds.

Where you prefer a socialistic approach to social media I say capitalism can take care of it.

 

[JonC]

Did they inviting the public to register on their platform without telling the public that you can not post on our platform if your political vies of the world is different from mine? Ans without publishing exactly what their view of the world to be?

Do you believe or not believe their control of their platform greatly influenced the 2020 Presidential election and you believe that it should be legal for them to greatly influence an election by what is posted and or not posted on their platform.

Are they along a monopoly of information relative to social (PUBLIC) media.


Where do you believe everyone under the age of 35 receive their information. Even the information of their vote?

A monopoly is defined as "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service."

YouTube is one of hundreds of options. How is this a monopoly?????

YouTube us not public (I cannot just post on YouTube - I need an account which means entering into an agreement with a private company (here, Google). I cannot post on YouTube because I have not entered into such an agreement. It is NOT public (it's content is viewable by the public). Same with Facebook.

Your post seems to imply that these hundreds of social media options (none public) influence the public as news source. If so then they are responsible for weeding out false news stories.

Should GodTube (a Christian alternative to YouTube) be forced to carry secular rap videos?

 

[percho]

From post 21

The company had also been working for years in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on bringing a new class of vaccines to market.


Does the fact check prove beyond a reasonable doubt the video is not true?

Fact check
Fact check: 'Plandemic II' alleges false CDC, NIH conspiracy theory (usatoday.com)

Video
Plandemic - Fauci, patents - YouTube

Why in two days did they have the vaccine, 7 days before the first reported case in the US.

More research would also have you ask why the first reported case was found in the state of Washington.

 

[Scott Downey]

From post 21

The company had also been working for years in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on bringing a new class of vaccines to market.


Does the fact check prove beyond a reasonable doubt the video is not true?

Fact check
Fact check: 'Plandemic II' alleges false CDC, NIH conspiracy theory (usatoday.com)

Video
Plandemic - Fauci, patents - YouTube

Why in two days did they have the vaccine, 7 days before the first reported case in the US.

More research would also have you ask why the first reported case was found in the state of Washington.

Fauci and team created the virus in china and gave Wuhan millions of dollars to do that with their 'gain of function' protocol, so the virus was man designed, but I dont know about premeditated release.

Gain-of-function (GOF) research involves experimentation that aims or is expected to (and/or, perhaps, actually does) increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens. Such research, when conducted by responsible scientists, usually aims to improve understanding of disease causing agents,

 

[Aaron]

No. My premis is the government should not force private businesses to be a platform for things the owners of those businesses oppose. The only except is when it comes to areas where there is only one or two of those businesses and the business is a necessity.

So you agree there are limits on the control one can have over his own property when the public interest is involved.

Socialist.

Where you prefer a socialistic approach to social media I say capitalism can take care of it.

An anit-trust capitalism, you mean.