Slashdot Mirror
Pinterest Cracks Down on Anti-Vaxxers, Pressuring Facebook To Follow (cnbc.com)
Social network Pinterest has taken a big step to stop the spread of false content that is damaging people's health, which could put pressure on competitors to follow. From a report: Pinterest said Wednesday that it would no longer return any search results, including pins and boards, for terms related to vaccinations, whether in favor or against them. It took that step in late 2018 after noticing that the majority of shared images on Pinterest cautioned people against vaccinations, despite medical guidelines demonstrating that most vaccines are safe for most people. Pinterest told CNBC on Wednesday that it's been hard to remove this anti-vaccination content entirely, so it put the ban in place until it can figure out a more permanent strategy. It's working with health experts including doctors, as well as the social media analysis company called Storyful to come up with a better solution, the company said.
People aren't going on Pintrest to search for vaccines to learn and make a reasoned argument. The problem is they find it organically and get sucked in.
If people wanted to search for information, they would use Google.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
for advertisers.
During the election when all that fake news was going around somebody interviewed the sys admin of one of the bigger networks. He was just in it for the ad revenue (and racking in a ton).
He was asked why he targeted the folks he did. It came down to certain groups of people would share and spread his crap, while other groups would debunk it instantly and it wouldn't get very far.
Anti-Vaxxers are like that. They'll spread your nonsense because they're already prepared to believe nonsense.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I don't care what people say about vaccines or what ever. Say it, and be counted if you really feel needed. When will be stop "cracking down" on what is ok to say and not? This always sounds great till it's your point of view that is squished. Best part is you usually won't even know it. Companies can do this all the time in the background.
Of course these are public companies so they can do what they like. It's just a medium.
As far as vaccines, I'll get my advise from my doctor.
Look, I'm not only in favour of vaccinations, I need people to have them myself, because I'm immuno-compromised. These kinds of measures, however, are not helpful. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and by censoring this discussion you're only going to create a situation where these people are all the more staunchly against it, and create sympathy for them from individuals who value civil liberties. By the by, I would say this is an attempt to create a further propaganda instrument, dressed up in an argument for censorship that looks appealing. As Picard said in Drumhead, "Those whom cloak themselves in good intentions, are well-camouflaged."
It's demonstrably harmful to others. It should be treated the same as advocating for violence.
When will be stop "cracking down" on what is ok to say and not?
Why would we stop cracking down on stupid, incorrect, dangerous information? As long as it's not the government inhibiting your right to say it, how could you possibly have a problem with public and private entities of society trying to downplay bad information and promote good information? You'd have to be utterly ignorant of history to think good information magically bubbles up simply by inherent quality.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I also don't think that social pressure like this changes any minds. We should actually reason with people/explain the position on how vaccines save lives and what controls there are if something goes wrong with a vaccine. It's true, they're not perfect, but they're a lot better than the diseases they replace. We wiped out Polio.
It's stupid to try to beat people into believing something like this when they have a mix of real concerns and bad information, instead we should point out that we know the faults, we have a way of handling things, and we're trying to make them better and that we don't just rely on the say-so of random drug companies.
But I think the jihad against anti-vaxxers does more harm than good. Instead, we should help people get vaccinations and help them learn why we promote them so that it's safe to change their minds, rather than trying to make them feel under attack.
Yes, it's stupid and harmful, but they're people who don't know any better and this sort of reaction is also harmful.
At the very least they should put up a banner "Free Speech Not Allowed on This Platform." As you said, "these are public companies so they can do what they like" but terms and conditions do matter and must be disclosed.
Who decides what information is good then?
In theory and in current and historical practice in free-enough societies, it depends entirely on what the information in question is. Surely your question isn't "what one entity decides what all information is good then?"
"Old man yells at systemd"
The minute you start culling your content you open yourself up to liability. Ooops, you missed one and now you are being sued for allowing that content to reach little Johnny's sensitive eyes. People can sue for anything and any reason. This gives them an attack vector. Dewey, Cheetum, & Howe are just waiting for opportunities like these.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
SirSlud, thank you for your comment. Again, who decides what is "dangerous" information? People lie all the time, it's life. People shout down the opposing side by calling others names and labeling them with incorrect labels. Really what needs to happen is simply have a conversation. But this is a personal thing.
Stupid information? Again says who? From what point of view?
Thankfully, I'm not utterly ignorant of history, I fall between somewhat, and so-so.
"Again, who decides what is "dangerous" information?"
I don't see a lot of people arguing over who decides what cars don't get allowed on the road or what plants we feed to the animals at the zoo or what kind of fuel we put in the airplanes we fly in.
As in, it depends on what the information is, who is saying it, and how they're saying it. All this handwringing about a website going, "Nah, spread that shit somewhere else" is ludicrous in the face of living in a society in which 99.99% of our existence is governed by decisions we don't get a say in.
"Old man yells at systemd"
They do not work for a small subset of the protected group, like 2-3% of a measles outbreak is people previously vaccination.
In addition, certain groups cannot receive vaccines, people undergoing chemo, people with compromised immune systems, etc
We are essentially protecting these vulnerable populations when we get vaccinations.
If 2-3% of the vaccinated population is still susceptible, their likelihood of getting the disease in the first place is massively reduced if the rest of the population is protected.
This would be a little like Porsche dealerships putting a sign up saying, "No pooping in the middle of the showroom."
You don't need that sign because it wasn't implied to the vast majority of emotionally functional adults that you ever had that privilege in the first place.
"Old man yells at systemd"
There is no cure for the common stupidity and its variants of anti-vaxxing, flat-earthing, etc.
I also do not agree that this is censorship. Freedom of speech does not go so far that gross lies that harm and kill people can be tolerated.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I can only assume that you're either a moron or an ignoramus. Seriously, you idiot, look up herd immunity.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I hope "crack down" means adding things like a scare tag. This item has been detected to contain fraudulent information. Even in fullscreen mode or whatever it is these socialwhoring apps do.
Simple deletion (or his shittier big brother, stealth deletion) is pretty much censorship. That's legal for a private platform, but it's still a terrible practice to loudly decry.
Things like bomb threats and fire in a theater can be controlled because they commit a second act that you CAN charge. The original act, speech, is not directly controlled. Speech is never federally controlled - it gets compromised inclusively, incidentally, not directly.
Antivax circlejerking is a pox (lol) but it's hard to prove legally-actionable harm from it. So, like I said, shame it, ridicule it, you control the platform. Easy workaround.
In this case, 100+ years of scientific research have shown that vaccines are good. This is not up for debate; there is no 'controversy' to teach or discuss; there is 100+ years of immunology, virology, and other medical research, and there's Karen from some Mom group on FB or Pintrest saying that aborted monkey fetus cells are in vaccines or some other bullshit.
I am not a fan of censoring people; however, just as there are limits on the First Amendment (no shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater, etc.), helping to curtail the spread of incorrect, unsupported, and--in a lot of cases--dangerous woo-fuckery like the Anti-Vax supports is essential to maintaining public help and ensuring that diseases we were close to eliminating stay that way.
Seems a generous description for an image bookmarking service.
Someone spreading measles because of being not vaccinated is dangerous to others.
What Pintrist is doing isn't a crackdown. They are distancing themselves from the "controversy".
It's possible that they just don't want to spend the effort to police content, since that's what they'd have to do to allow vaccination stuff while blocking anti-vax stuff, but calling it a crackdown is incorrect.
This is how society loses its freedom of speech.
Oh bullshit. A private company squashing factually wrong information that results in people becoming sick and dying is hardly a slippery slope to the elimination of free speech. Anti-vaxxers are the slow equivalent of people shouting fire in a movie theater. They are causing needless panic and should be liable for the harm the lies they spread cause.
Sure it's just pintrest and possibly facebook; but what if google decided to weigh in with their opinon on the matter?
I hope they do. Anti-vaxxers are hurting people and it needs to stop as soon as possible.
The slippery slope might be a fallacious argument, but it's not always wrong.
It's definitely wrong in this case.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Only opinions from institutionally qualified persons are allowed here. All of our government mandated schooling is mind control. This is just the next step in "controlling the narratives". 1984 folks. It's coming. It's here.
Not by the government, but sometimes private companies SHOULD censor users. It's called ethics.
How? How is someone who isn't vaccinated harmful to someone who is? Isn't that the whole point of vaccinations? Or, do they not work?
Vaccinations work, but they are not 100% effective. An important measure of infectious diseases is the basic reproduction number, or R-nought. This represents the average number of infections that one sick person will create. Suppose mumps has an R-nought of 5, and you have a vaccine with 90% effectiveness, then the effective R-nought, after vaccination, is 0.5.
The critical point is an R-nought of 1. If you get below that, the diseases is expected to die out over time. If it is higher, then the disease is expected to grow. Getting the value from 5 to 0.5 will make a huge difference, which you would get if everybody is vaccinated. If too few people are vaccinated, R-nought will grow, and disease can spread, and will also infect 10% of the vaccinated population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
... Jussie Smollet would have gotten away with it. Remember kids : It was those nasty vile alt-right conspiracy theorists who first cast doubt on his way too perfect narrative!
Challenging established orthodoxy is how you progress, contrary to the pro-Censorship crowd. Ideas become widespread because they are challenged and survive those challenges, coming out on top. If your idea is really good, and your way is really best, you don't need to silence your opponents, you can handily defeat them.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Who decides what information is good then? Think for one second.
Scientists and doctors backed up by appropriate government agencies staffed by experts in the field. This question is EXACTLY why we have the NIH, the CDC, the FDA, etc. It's their mission to prevent quackery and they do it very well. Pretending that nobody is worthy to decide what is good data is idiotic.
I'm vaccinated, I have two 1y grandkids not through the regimen yet. Until then THEY are susceptible to any mobile Petri dish who's sure their opinions trump a century of factual data on vaccine efficacy. I'm not quite to the age range yet where my immune system will start ramping down regardless of what vaccinations I've had; then *I'm* vulnerable. Some people have naturally weak immune systems and vaccines "don't take"; THEY'RE vulnerable. Part of the "social contract" if you will, is helping protect your neighbors, Vaccinating to avoid the chance of passing some damaging disease to them is part of the deal. The people who skip assuming The Other Guy will get THEIR kids covered and protect their Special Snowflake are the worst sort of societal leeches.
If the anti-vaxxers would just let their kids die after getting infected I wouldn't complain, but I get to foot the bill to prolong the life of their spawn.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Here ya go:
Vaccinations and herd immunity in a nutshell by Penn and Teller
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
TLDW: In other words, yes, people refusing to vaccinate is actually harmful to the herd.
Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
But they're funny!
I know, I know, it's so very non-PC these days to laugh about retards, but ... please let me have that little guilty pleasure.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Doesn't TFA make it clear that they stopped all vaccination results for now until a panel of experts decide what to do about the topic?
Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
I would no consider all over 21 states of the US a localized phenomenon.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Oh YOU're the one who knows someone harmed by vaccines!
Hey, folks, we found the guy!
Great. Want to go back a few years and discuss whether a polio vaccine could potentially be a good thing? Maybe in an Iron Lung ward?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Oh yea, Fascists.
Horseshoe theory at work, as they bash you over the head with a bike lock for voting wrong screaming "we are the good guys".
> I don't care about changing minds. I care about changing behavior.
Then you care about changing minds and you don't know it. Worse, you think you know it and you're complicit in the very same harm by preventing the rest of us from helping these people due to the fact that you're moralizing something that's not a moral problem. They're not bad people, they have misplaced trust and bad information. Your "solution" is like dumping gasoline on a fire. Yes, the fire causes real harm. But so does what you're doing to stop it!
> You cannot reason with an illogical fearful person working from a false premise and bad data. These are not people who are going to listen to anything you have to say.
Gee, I wonder why they don't trust you when you threaten them? Hint: this isn't a knowledge issue, it's a *trust* issue, and you're actively *harming* any attempts to get them to trust science because you've decided they're bad people. But they're harming people, right? Well, so are vaccines (rarely), and we have to weigh the good against the bad. I think the real chance of them hurting people is worth taking in order to rebuild trust and end the anti-vaxx movement peacefully.
> The evidence is already out there and they aren't listening. Why on earth do you think that people who are going out of their way to ignore the overwhelming evidence that vaccines are safe and effective are going to suddenly start just because you talk to them in a calm tone.
No, they need to be able to *trust* us. Threats actively undermine that and the worst thing about what you're doing is that you can say my approach doesn't work without bothering to realize how you're undermining it.
> Every pediatrician I've ever come in contact with discusses the topic endlessly. It's been explained to them by people who know and they don't believe the evidence.
Discussion isn't sufficient to get people to trust you. It's time to stop poisoning the well. There's plenty of psychological research on persuasion, but here you are dismissing it out of hand! Or are you going to continue not to look at it just to prove your point that discussion doesn't work with you, either, so as to protect your ego? :)
If? Pinterest has been banning tor users for years. They are very much in the game of censorship.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
I love this,and this we should ban ALL opposing viewpoints!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
All this handwringing about a website going, "Nah, spread that shit somewhere else" is ludicrous in the face of living in a society in which 99.99% of our existence is governed by decisions we don't get a say in.
This kind of reasoning is exactly why your life is governed by decisions in which you have no say.
"We already live in a society where 99.9897% of our life is governed by things in which we have no say, so taking away one more right from you won't hurt anything."
"We already live in a society where 99.9898% of our life is governed by things in which we have no say, so taking away one more right from you won't hurt anything."
"We already live in a society where ...."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Three ways:
1) Vaccinations aren't 100% effective. If they are 99.9% effective then for every million people vaccinated, there will be 1,000 without protection.
2) Babies who are too young to get the vaccine can be infected by people who weren't vaccinated.
3) People with medical conditions that prevent them from being vaccinated (e.g. immune system issues) can be infected by people who weren't vaccinated.
Usually, all these people will be protected by herd immunity. However, as more people don't vaccinate, these people become vulnerable to disease.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
If "the vast majority of emotionally functional adults" truly accept it as a given that they do not have "the privilege" of speaking their mind in a public forum, then that is an incredibly sad commentary on the condition of our species.
While you have a small point, it's worth noting that people tend to continue to believe the first version of a story that they hear, even when they are (temporarily) convinced that it was an accident or fraud.
So apologies and retractions are insufficient to repair the harm done. But rarely is any further action either undertaken, or even attempted. And it's usually not clear how the harm *could* be repaired. (No, money is not a universal solvent.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The trouble with the argument about antibiotics is that many doctors only reluctantly prescribe them when they shouldn't be used. It *is* a problem that they let the patients browbeat them into issuing the prescriptions, I'll agree, but that's different from pushing something.
More of the problem with the antibiotics is caused by the agri-business.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Throwing away all of the moderations I did in this discussion:
Ok. You know someone who was harmed by vaccines. Do you know anyone who has been harmed by disease? Have you seen what the diseases do?
The ultimate question:
Do you feel that the harm done by the vaccine was greater than the harm done by the virus the vaccine was proof against?
Mind you, in order to answer that question fully, you have to consider how many people are harmed by the vaccine and how many people are harmed by the disease. You can't just say, "the person died, but the disease would have only crippled him for life".
Remember, this is a numbers game. If 50 people died from the vaccine and 1,000 would have been crippled by the disease, I would still call that a huge win, even if I were one of the unlucky ones. :(
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Oh bullshit.
I went to the doctor years back for a respiratory infection that lasted more than a week and they threw antibiotics at me.
I went to the same doctor (saw the same actual doctor) a couple of years later for a similar but more severe issue and specifically asked for antibiotics because work was ramping up the following week and being out sick would have been a major setback.
Then I got the lecture about how they're overprescribed, how I'm an idiot that needs to be talked down to, blah blah blah.
That fucking moron doctor threw them at me before, and now she was denying me access to treatment in a more severe case!
Fuck em. I'll buy from aquarium supply stores and do it myself and save tons of fucking money in the process.
I don't find "we have studied the issue, and have decided we'll publish misleading and positively dangerous information that influences people to foster epidemics on our website anyway" to be as tenable and appealing a position as you clearly do.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Looking at those incidents:
Simian Virus 40 (SV40) - 1955–1963
Sure, contamination of 10% - 30% sounds bad, until you look at the numbers. Most people exposed had less cancers than people who were not exposes. The sole exception is mesothelioma and children conceived during the exposure period. Even then, the relative risk is only moderate, when you consider the population under study already has a relative risk of 17+
Swine Flu Vaccine and Guillain-Barré Syndrome - 1976
Less than 400 people out of the over 40 million people vaccinated got GBS. It usually occurs when you are sick when vaccinated and can arise when you get the flu normally. Also, the risk is relatively low when you consider the U.S. has between 3,000 and 6,000 cases reported each year and the vaccines with modern adjuvants, at best, has a number needed to harm of almost 1 in 2 million.
Hepatitis B Vaccine and Multiple Sclerosis – 1998
There was a panic in the media, but neither a statistical link nor a probable causal mechanism was found. In fact, the raw numbers show a decreased probability (although the noise level is extremely high)
Rotavirus Vaccine and Intussusception – 1998 - 1999
Ah, here is a real one. Receiving the first dose of the RotaShield vaccine, which was only available for less than a year, had a relative risk for intussusception of 30 within two weeks of administration, which is really high. This risk decreases with subsequent does and as time passes. In that case, however, the number needed to harm was 10,000. Also, intussusception is a very common condition in infants (hence why the studies didn't find it in the first place in smaller samples), curable most of the time with an outpatient procedure, and curable 100% of the time with surgery. Finally, all those patients would have been compensated by the government after reporting to VAERS. If anything, this is an example of the system working.
Guillain-Barré Syndrome and Meningococcal Vaccine - 2005 – 2008
Multiple studies, including one with 2 million people, and two more with around 10 million people concluded there was no risk. In fact, if you take the raw numbers, vaccine would appear to reduce your risk.
Hib Vaccine Recall – 2007
There was some evidence that the equipment making the vaccine, NOT the vaccine itself, was contaminated with Bacillus cereus, a common food poisoning bacteria. Only 75 cases, out of the 1.3 million doses, suspected the disease and the vast majority were gastrointestinal, which had a high probably of being caused by food poisoning, not the vaccine. Only one (1) case of non-gastrointestinal B. cereus was discovered, but that individual was falsely flagged, as they didn't even get the recalled vaccine.
H1N1 Influenza Vaccine and Narcolepsy - 2009 – 2010
A link was discovered between a specific H1N1 vaccine, Pandemrix, and narcolepsy. The relative risk and NNH were both small but significant. Eventually, the cause was determined to be ASO3, an adjuvant used only in that vaccine, and it is no longer used at all.
Porcine Circovirus in Rotavirus Vaccines - 2010
PCV1 contaminated two oral rotavirus vaccines. Not only are humans routinely exposed to PCV1 via the oral route in pork products, the virus cannot infect human cells at all, even in in-vitro studies. There are zero cases of PCV1 infection in humans and there have literally been tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of doses given. Fact of the matter is, PCV1 would have to mutate to infect humans. Worst case scenario is short-term infection of your gut microbiome and the resulting "stomach flu."
HPV Vaccine Recall – 2013
743,360 doses of HPV vaccine were recalled du
Time to export all native born Texans.
https://object.cato.org/sites/...
And this type of ignorance is why anti-vaxxers have to be stopped from the outside. You cannot fight your way though the shell of ignorance and disinformation.
but for the flat earthers I think it's about community. Particularly a community that accepts all types without preconditions. Religion is on the wane and usually churches are the place to go for that kind of thing, leaving folks who have less than perfect social skills but who want to be around people looking for a social outlet.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You are attempting to destroy free speech by making anybody have to say anything you like.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Whoever's publishing stuff. If you don't like it, get your own website and use it to push what you want pushed. Don't dictate to others what they can and cannot say.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
So I've seen this same comment from you at least 3 times so far in this article... Do you have anything to share that actually supports your claims? I gave up looking after about 10 minutes, as every article I could find trying to prove it (well, disprove it) was authored by some anti-vax organization. All of them seemed to point to a single source, Dr.Russell Blaylock, a neurosurgeon. The only reasonably credible article I could find was from "The Hill", but again their only source was the same set of comments from Dr. Blaylock. Not to disparage the Dr, even though some question his views on artificial sweeteners, if I wanted advice on epidemiology I'm not going to ask a neurosurgeon I'd likely seek the opinion of an epidemiologist.
It isn't a public forum. It's a private forum open to the public for certain purposes. The web itself is pretty much an open public forum, and you can peddle your nonsense there all you like.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Try looking to China. They have as close to 100% vaccination as is possible, so if herd immunity was a thing it would demonstrate itself there. On the contrary, they have outbreaks of measles just like the US. So if their evidence of why it is so good to do is verifiably flawed, why should I believe other crap that spews from their mouths. And remember, most of the people telling you it is safe have done no investigation of their own. Taking what a profit driven corporation says as gospel is not the scientific method in my book.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Why curtail any persons right to free speech and the ability for them to publish?
Its their own content, their words, their ideas, their comments, their research.
A lot of nations, cults, faiths, governments, NGO's, trade groups, think tanks, security services all have views on what is unsupported.
Should they get to control the flow on what can be published by people using their own words?
They too will have the needed research to guide the publication of any topic.
What is next to be found sinful?
What other topics need to be curated?
Taiwan?
The 1989 Tiananmen Square protests?
Catalonia?
News from Germany?
A list of words from the UK that will result in a police investigation?
Funny images of French politicians?
Political memes and cartoons?
Blasphemy?
State laws on images of the results of farming and mining?
The publication of material the security services "say" is not covered by journalism and freedom of the press and would like removed?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
What's sad is an adult who doesn't know what a public space is.
"Old man yells at systemd"
IMHO, most debates like this have some truth on BOTH sides. I don't like the push to just stop vaccinating - but I'm also not fond of the way the medical community and others seem to be polarized, to try to utterly shut down what they're saying.
It's not logical or "good science" to assume that all the NEW vaccinations that are developed are just as safe as the "classic" ones with proven track records, like the polio vaccine.
I think it's worth noting that until 2000-2003 or so, they were still using mercury in the vaccines given to infants. I'm not sure that practice would have changed if there wasn't an outcry forming about potential safety issues with them? (And mercury is STILL found in many of the influenza shots today. Granted, they insist it's pretty safe, since it's ethylmercury, not methylmercury, which means it breaks down faster in the human body.)
But there are valid concerns about vaccines like Gardasil, too. Statistically, there ARE a certain number of deaths caused by receiving that immunization. The manufacturer counters that it's statistically about the same as the number of women who die from cervical cancer so it's therefore justified. Yet, that doesn't take into account any OTHER adverse effects the vaccine could cause, including cases it paralyzed a person. It's also uncertain the vaccine still provides protection for more than 15 years or so.
Want to fix the health side? No need to stop free speech.
Set up a list of who can be vaccinated, what with and when.
Link a vaccinated list to a birth certificate, citizenship, passport, visa that follows a person with their doctor and digitally.
Want to stay a doctor, nurse, work in a hospital? Time to be fully vaccinated.
Starting education? Got vaccinated? No education if not vaccinated. Same for any level of private/faith education.
Continuing education? Still vaccinated?
Want to graduate? Vaccinated? Exam results? Vaccinated?
Enter a profession and want to be approved to work? Vaccinated? No vaccination, no professional qualifications are approved.
Request a loan for more education? Medical review.
Want the insurance, permits and licence to work eg plumbing, electrician? Thats time to show the vaccinated list.
Work for the US gov, mil, as a contractor? Ever had any US mil/gov/contractor security clearance? Time for a gov medical review.
In the mil? Thats lots of extra vaccinations.
Any occupation that has customers, interacts with people? Medical review.
Refugee, immigrant with approval to enter the nation? Full medical review.
Tourist applying for a visa at any US embassy? Have to do a health review as part of a visa approval.
Faith group, religion? Get that easy tax exemption as a charity? All workers, staff, volunteers have to be vaccinated.
Lawyer? Bar exam results are only released after showing fully vaccinated.
Factory work, banking, food workers? Want insurance and a gov permit? Everyone gets vaccinated.
Apply for public housing, rent support from the gov? Citizenship and show you vaccinated.
Food stamps? Thats a medial review and a citizenship question.
Any interaction with law enforcement? DNA is taken and a full medical review.
Going to prison? In prison? Getting released from prison? Time to get fully vaccinated.
Want a US passport? Thats a medical review.
Want that electronic benefit transfer to keep working? Keep getting vaccinated.
Entering the USA for any type of work, business? Extraordinary ability? Academic? Faith group? Medical review.
Have a US retirement plan? Need gov/private pension benefits released? Show citizenship and that history of been vaccinated.
Get to keep the freedom of speech and everyone gets fully vaccinated over the decades.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Forced-vax nazis sure do prefer the iron boot over persuasion.
Nah... If there's one thing Corporate Progressive nazis hate as much as freedom of speech, it's honesty.
It's a private forum by legal definition, yes, but by that reasoning so is the entire internet. Even net neutrality doesn't protect you; there are no laws barring your ISP from censoring your emails and messages since they are also a "private forum".
I think we need to revisit these laws.
All censorship starts with good intentions (or at least what its authors think are good intentions).
1) Censorship is only illegal as it applies to the government. Private companies have NO legal obligation to give you a platform to say whatever idiotic thing you want and never have. You can say what you want but you have never had a legal right to say whatever you want in any location or platform you choose. The newspaper is under no obligation to print whatever fool thing you want to say and neither is Facebook or Pinterest or Twitter or Instagram if it runs contrary to their interests. I fail to see any compelling interest Pinterest might have in promoting quackery that could conceivably result in liability for them.
2) Spreading provably false psuedo-science as "information" that demonstrably leads to the sickness & deaths isn't protected free speech under any legal framework. The only reason it doesn't get prosecuted is because it is difficult to tie the action to a specific instance of harm. Anti-vaxxers are engaging in quackery which is quite illegal and definitely not protected speech.
So if all the places people go in the digital commons (Facebook, Google, Youtube, Pinterest) ban certain kinds of speech do you have free speech?
Yes. Next question. You don't get to publish whatever you want in the newspaper or on TV. Why do you think Facebook or Google or any other private company's platform should be any different legally? That's not how it works. Free speech as a legal right ONLY applies to government prosecution and censorship.
I'd argue that some of these platforms are the modern parks and public spaces.
Good thing you aren't a lawyer then because you would be wrong. And you have a grave misapprehension about how free speech laws work in the real world. They are not public spaces and never were. And even if they were quackery is NOT protected speech no matter where you engage in it.
I don't like where this is headed and I am saddened that you're modded +5 insightful...
Quackery is not protected speech and never has been.
Vaccination is a matter of statistics and probabilities. How likely is it to catch a disease? How likely is it to have severe, permanent negative effects from it? How likely is a severe, permanent negative effect from a vaccine against it?
I give you that it's kinda useless to vaccinate against a disease that only exists on the other end of the planet and you don't plan to go there. It's not worth any risk a vaccination may present. But when dealing with measles where infection is near certain if you get close to an infected person, severe permanent negative effects are about 1 in 500 to 1 in 1000 from infections and about 1 in a million in vaccinations, it's a no brainer.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In this case, the site owner. If you're publishing something (and I'm using "publishing" in a loose sense), you get to decide what you publish. How else would you want to do it? Government mandate?
If you disagree with what a publisher is publishing, set yourself up as a publisher. It's never been easier. Set up a website on AWS or something and have at.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Free speech is not allowed on any platform that isn't a straight common carrier. Every publisher will have standards of what can and cannot be said. Failure to have those standards will doom the platform. Anybody remember the old unmoderated Usenet groups? Did you watch what happened to them as the trolls took over? How many people still used them?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes