Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:21 pm  

PopTart wrote:

Jeez another thing for you to o running around shouting the sky is falling in.
Misinformation is a massive problem on social media and I'm glad someone is trying to manage it. However, before you cry foul about the censorship, you don't even know the criteria they are going to use, or the timescale to even do it, yet you are using a veteran to make an inaccurate point.

And if we are being fair here, censorship would be when they stop you expressing your views. Not being able to express your views on YouTube is not the same thing. They have as much right to freedom of choice as you do. Its a private company. You can express your fake news on other social media sites I'm sure.
As you don't believe in Smart Phones though it shouldn't be a problem.

Never said I didn't believe in smart phones. I don't own a gun nor do I want one, does not mean I don't believe in them.

But again, you miss the point. Youtube and facebook are now a monopoly and like it or not the vast majority of people in the world are using these platforms, platforms who now practice ommision and censorship.
You keep banging on about "fake news" yet do not seem to understand that ommision is on a parrarel with fakery.
You seem ok with that. Hypocritical ?


You say:
" censorship would be when they stop you expressing your views. Not being able to express your views on YouTube is not the same thing."

Sorry, I do not understand the logic there.

[PopTart]

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:27 pm  

Miro wrote:

Never said I didn't believe in smart phones. I don't own a gun, does not mean I don't believe in them.

But again, you miss the point. Youtube and facebook are now a monopoly and like it or not the vast majority of people in the world are using these platforms, platforms who now practice ommision and censorship.
You keep banging on about "fake news" yet do not seem to understand that ommision is on a parrarel with fakery.
You seem ok with that. Hypocritical ?


You say:
" censorship would be when they stop you expressing your views. Not being able to express your views on YouTube is not the same thing."

Sorry, I do not understand the logic there.

The logic is that you have many other outlets to express your views. What they are trying to do is sade guarding, which many of the people who use those sites have been asking for.
It's only the same as this site. They apply rules to safe guard members of the site. You can't just post anything on here. Is that censorship?

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:47 pm  

PopTart wrote:

Jeez another thing for you to o running around shouting the sky is falling in.
Misinformation is a massive problem on social media and I'm glad someone is trying to manage it. However, before you cry foul about the censorship, you don't even know the criteria they are going to use, or the timescale to even do it, yet you are using a veteran to make an inaccurate point.

And if we are being fair here, censorship would be when they stop you expressing your views. Not being able to express your views on YouTube is not the same thing. They have as much right to freedom of choice as you do. Its a private company. You can express your fake news on other social media sites I'm sure.
As you don't believe in Smart Phones though it shouldn't be a problem.

Can you please then explain why many doctors and people in the scientific field have been thrown off google and facebook yet a guy like Gates has a free reign to pontificate upon things he is no expert on. I give you Greta Thunderburg or whatever her name is, 16 years of age and no expert, Tony Blair on any subject under the sun including vaccines all given free reign on those platforms but not doctors, fully qualified in their field, just because they have a different point of view to google.

A word you used there "someone". Maybe you have not heard of algorithms, AI, that actually does the censoring

As for private companies, where do you draw the line. The Post Office refusing to handle your mail? BT controling who you can and cannot speak to or denying you wi fi access? Ford refusing to sell you a car because they don't like where you might take it?

Censorship is not a good thing, it was bad in the old Soviet Union and it's bad here.
Let people decide for themselves what is truth and what is fake, not by leaving it in the hands of American corporations. Would you leave it in the hands of a Russian, Chinese, N Korean corporation, I bet not.
Folk on here say I spread fake news (though they always fail to back up the allegation) but if I do you all seem to handle it well enough. Why deny others that privilege Why do you back youtube and facebook to deny us that right.

PopTart
"Jeez another thing for you to go running around shouting the sky is falling in."

Aye, I think the sky might be falling in. Went into Ossett today, first time in a couple of months. I'll say no more

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Mon Oct 19, 2020 11:14 pm  

PopTart wrote:

The logic is that you have many other outlets to express your views. What they are trying to do is sade guarding, which many of the people who use those sites have been asking for.
It's only the same as this site. They apply rules to safe guard members of the site. You can't just post anything on here. Is that censorship?

Oh come on, they have a virtual monopoly see here

Mark Zuckerberg's social media site Facebook came out on top, according to a report from research company App Annie.
Facebook's other apps, Messenger, WhatsApp, and Instagram also made the top 5.
And then we have Youtube.

It's not about my free choice it's the unwitting general public that are being manipulated by American corporations that have an agenda, good or bad, doesn't matter. If they oporate in the UK then they should not be allowed to censor us. Even you can see that surely.

It's not all bad. In fact as we speak there are still many excellent posts on youtube. But that does not excuse the pulling of many other excellent postings, Dr Vernan Coleman for example. But just what the future holds I don't know. As it stands I was simply relating what Google and Facebook are telling us are their policies as the vaccine gets rolled out.. A very dangerous policy I believe.

No PopTart, I don't suppose I can just post just anything on here. But tell me, if I was a fully qualified doctor and warned about the dangers of a particular medical treatment would you, as moderator, censor me? And if so, on what grounds? Because wrencat, totaly unqualified, disagreed with me? Or even if another doctor came on and disagreed with me. Or would you allow a debate and leave it up to others to choose who they believed?

Now that would be the grown up solution, would you agree?

To repeat something you didn't answer from previous post,

You keep banging on about "fake news" yet do not seem to understand that ommision is on a parallel with fakery.
You seem ok with that. Hypocritical ?

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:39 am  

Miro wrote:

Oh come on, they have a virtual monopoly see here

Mark Zuckerberg's social media site Facebook came out on top, according to a report from research company App Annie.
Facebook's other apps, Messenger, WhatsApp, and Instagram also made the top 5.
And then we have Youtube.

It's not about my free choice it's the unwitting general public that are being manipulated by American corporations that have an agenda, good or bad, doesn't matter. If they oporate in the UK then they should not be allowed to censor us. Even you can see that surely.

It's not all bad. In fact as we speak there are still many excellent posts on youtube. But that does not excuse the pulling of many other excellent postings, Dr Vernan Coleman for example. But just what the future holds I don't know. As it stands I was simply relating what Google and Facebook are telling us are their policies as the vaccine gets rolled out.. A very dangerous policy I believe.

No PopTart, I don't suppose I can just post just anything on here. But tell me, if I was a fully qualified doctor and warned about the dangers of a particular medical treatment would you, as moderator, censor me? And if so, on what grounds? Because wrencat, totaly unqualified, disagreed with me? Or even if another doctor came on and disagreed with me. Or would you allow a debate and leave it up to others to choose who they believed?

Now that would be the grown up solution, would you agree?

To repeat something you didn't answer from previous post,

You keep banging on about "fake news" yet do not seem to understand that ommision is on a parallel with fakery.
You seem ok with that. Hypocritical ?

I would look at what evidence he has for that treatment being dangerous. What experiments and data he had produced/published and been peer reviewed and what the view of those peers was. I would not accept the simple word or views of an individual on something so important regardless of his/her qualifications.

I cannot publish any views I like in the Daily Mail, why should I be able to publish them on social media? If I have views which have no basis and are contrary to all evidence, I would have to find another way of reaching the public, say self-publishing a series of books like your favourite unlicensed doctor.

He is not censored at all, only not allowed to publish unsubstantiated views on certain privately owned media.

Similarly, David Ike is also not censored.

To be clear, the person making a claim has the burden of proof.

It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something, you can only show that there is no evidence to support it.

That's how science works.

Anyway, I've read a lot of what you've posted on here, but it seems mainly a Gish gallop of unrelated and unsubstantiated pseudo-science.

If you want an actual debate (as you've claimed)..

What is your main (single) point and what is the evidence for that?
e.g. that a global reset was a premeditated power grab tactic by '?????'.

One argument at a time.

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Tue Oct 20, 2020 7:56 am  

coco the fullback wrote:

I would look at what evidence he has for that treatment being dangerous. What experiments and data he had produced/published and been peer reviewed and what the view of those peers was. I would not accept the simple word or views of an individual on something so important regardless of his/her qualifications.

I cannot publish any views I like in the Daily Mail, why should I be able to publish them on social media? If I have views which have no basis and are contrary to all evidence, I would have to find another way of reaching the public, say self-publishing a series of books like your favourite unlicensed doctor.

He is not censored at all, only not allowed to publish unsubstantiated views on certain privately owned media.

Similarly, David Ike is also not censored.

To be clear, the person making a claim has the burden of proof.

It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something, you can only show that there is no evidence to support it.

That's how science works.

Anyway, I've read a lot of what you've posted on here, but it seems mainly a Gish gallop of unrelated and unsubstantiated pseudo-science.

If you want an actual debate (as you've claimed)..

What is your main (single) point and what is the evidence for that?
e.g. that a global reset was a premeditated power grab tactic by '?????'.

One argument at a time.

Very few of us on here are experts at anything, particularly medical science. The one thing that people have developed through the generations by the experience of their lives, and that of their forefathers, is “Common Sense.”if someone doesn’t seem right, then question it. We will all end up zombie like, if we just follow the experts without question. Just my opinion of course, I’m not an expert on Zombies.

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Tue Oct 20, 2020 9:10 am  

Dunkirk Spirit wrote:

Very few of us on here are experts at anything, particularly medical science. The one thing that people have developed through the generations by the experience of their lives, and that of their forefathers, is “Common Sense.”if someone doesn’t seem right, then question it. We will all end up zombie like, if we just follow the experts without question. Just my opinion of course, I’m not an expert on Zombies.

My advice would be to give Daryl a call on the Walking Dead.
He is an expert on those things.

[PopTart]

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:51 am  

Miro wrote:

Oh come on, they have a virtual monopoly see here

Mark Zuckerberg's social media site Facebook came out on top, according to a report from research company App Annie.
Facebook's other apps, Messenger, WhatsApp, and Instagram also made the top 5.
And then we have Youtube.

It's not about my free choice it's the unwitting general public that are being manipulated by American corporations that have an agenda, good or bad, doesn't matter. If they oporate in the UK then they should not be allowed to censor us. Even you can see that surely.

It's not all bad. In fact as we speak there are still many excellent posts on youtube. But that does not excuse the pulling of many other excellent postings, Dr Vernan Coleman for example. But just what the future holds I don't know. As it stands I was simply relating what Google and Facebook are telling us are their policies as the vaccine gets rolled out.. A very dangerous policy I believe.

No PopTart, I don't suppose I can just post just anything on here. But tell me, if I was a fully qualified doctor and warned about the dangers of a particular medical treatment would you, as moderator, censor me? And if so, on what grounds? Because wrencat, totaly unqualified, disagreed with me? Or even if another doctor came on and disagreed with me. Or would you allow a debate and leave it up to others to choose who they believed?

Now that would be the grown up solution, would you agree?

To repeat something you didn't answer from previous post,

You keep banging on about "fake news" yet do not seem to understand that ommision is on a parallel with fakery.
You seem ok with that. Hypocritical ?

But I don't know what your qualifications are and if you were advising people on medical procedures on here then yes I would moderate you. Politely.

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:19 pm  

Dunkirk Spirit wrote:

Very few of us on here are experts at anything, particularly medical science. The one thing that people have developed through the generations by the experience of their lives, and that of their forefathers, is “Common Sense.”if someone doesn’t seem right, then question it. We will all end up zombie like, if we just follow the experts without question. Just my opinion of course, I’m not an expert on Zombies.

Absolutely. I aren't even an expert in making my own breakfast ( burnt toast again) Anyone can hold any belief they wish. The thought police have not arrived yet. The level of proof required is totally up to the individual including zero evidence.

Being sceptical and asking questions is always a good position.

However, if you wish for someone else to believe what you do, then you need to match their level of evidence and proof.

Some people believe in ghosts, which is fine, fill your boots. I don't believe in ghosts because I have never seen any evidence that has convinced me of their existence. If someone wants me to believe in ghosts they're going to have to provide my level of proof.

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Tue Oct 20, 2020 3:19 pm  

coco the fullback wrote:

I would look at what evidence he has for that treatment being dangerous. What experiments and data he had produced/published and been peer reviewed and what the view of those peers was. I would not accept the simple word or views of an individual on something so important regardless of his/her qualifications.

I cannot publish any views I like in the Daily Mail, why should I be able to publish them on social media? If I have views which have no basis and are contrary to all evidence, I would have to find another way of reaching the public, say self-publishing a series of books like your favourite unlicensed doctor.

He is not censored at all, only not allowed to publish unsubstantiated views on certain privately owned media.

Similarly, David Ike is also not censored.

To be clear, the person making a claim has the burden of proof.

It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something, you can only show that there is no evidence to support it.

That's how science works.

Anyway, I've read a lot of what you've posted on here, but it seems mainly a Gish gallop of unrelated and unsubstantiated pseudo-science.

If you want an actual debate (as you've claimed)..

What is your main (single) point and what is the evidence for that?
e.g. that a global reset was a premeditated power grab tactic by '?????'.

One argument at a time.

Do I believe you would take the trouble to “look at what evidence he has for that treatment being dangerous. What experiments and data he had produced/published and been peer reviewed and what the view of those peers ?“ No I do not. Easy to say, very hard to do. Even if you had the time.

So, lets get this right, no unsubstantiated views are to be allowed on certain privately owned media.
I have to take you to task there. There are millions of unsubstantiated views on privately owned media. I even gave two examples.

The Daily Mail and social media are two wholly different mediums. They are not comparable.

Please define “unsubstantiated” when referring to a viewpoint as opposed to scientific facts (if indeed there is such a thing, the sands of science keeps shifting all the time)
I trust you have no knowledge of just what has been taken down from Dr Coleman's youtube.account.to pass any judgement.

If someone's upload is taken down, is that not censorship?
Censorship..meaning to, to examine in order to suppress'

Please elaborate “unsubstantiated pseudo-science” More than one example please or you allegation is unfounded and meaningless. Please back up your claim so that I may defend them.

And finally, you ask:

What is your main (single) point and what is the evidence for that?
e.g. that a global reset was a premeditated power grab tactic by '?????'.

My answer to that is, if you don't know by now after 46 pages then no amount of explanation here will possibly get through to you.
I'll Pass rather than waste my time repeating myself.