"HyCl, you are claiming that the majority of doctors ignored evidence that it was effective, a conspiracy of such a scale as to be impossible to maintain."
We already lived through that conspiracy once. It was called the AIDS crisis. They managed to maintain that conspiracy for almost 2 decades. There is even a good movie about it.
As a result we the people pushed back against big Pharma and the ABC bureaucracy, FDA, NIH etc. We passed right to try legislation.
As a result our law today is that if a drug is FDA approved for one treatment a doctor and patient with informed consent can use it for an off label treatment.
A large part. And I mean a very very large part of the current HCQ/Ivermectin fiasco is a bureaucratic end around of the law.
Zuckerberg and "Tony" have gotten so buddy buddy that big tech is going to ban any discussion of off-label use even though off-label use is perfectly legal and safe. This censorship is in effect gutting right to try laws.
"My experience is that when someone uses "big tech" to describe a small subset of tech companies that doesn't include entire tech industries, they're not arguing in good faith."
Its very much an argument in good faith. The law recognizes market power relative to the duty of the business. Such as the duty of a cable provider to proved lease channels is relative to their size.
Taking size and market share into account is not odd is a regulatory sense.
"Not when by "Big Tech" you don't mean the ISP's and cable providers. Road builders are under infrastructure regulations, General Motors and MacDonald's are not.
Facebook, Google and Amazon aren't infrastructure. They're users of infrastructure."
If I'm a private road contractor I'm under DOT regulation. If work for GM I'm also under DOT regulation.
I know you think for the sake of your argument that this is the way the is but its not.
At this stage you are making it up. Do some research before you post for god's sake.
"Most industries have regulations and laws they have to follow because it has been proven that they otherwise prey or cause harm"
No that is not why. Is because its in the "public interest" that is the Munn standard. That is all the Munn standard says. You are moving the goal posts.
"I await your admission that you were totally full of shit."
I never expected the initial court to rule in Florida's favor. The plaintiffs filed that suit at exactly the right time in exactly the right district knowing with near certainty which judge they would draw.
With as precise as judge shopping has become in the 21st century the district court ruling is basically meaningless.
You can pat yourself on the back but this is far from over.
" tenant negotiating the terms of rent and paying for the privilege of renting a property?"
The state procedure for evicting a tenant has nothing to do with the terms of the lease. Its the law you child. Any reflection of the legal procedure in the lease is just that a reflection of the existing law. A lease that didn't comply with the 30+ pages of regulation in my state would not be a legal lease.
Its not the contract terms. The only reason it states that in the contract is because that is what the law requires. Its state law genius. I know you live with your parents basement but come on.
" You agreed to their ToS when you signed up and those ToS say they can toss you out on the spot whenever they feel the desire to do so, without grievance."
But as a landlord I cant write that into my contract can I? My contract has to conform to the 30+ pages of procedural regulations on evicting a tenant. Other industries just cant make up their own rules. Other industries have layers upon layers of regulation that their contract has to conform to. Why is BigTech exempt?
Get a life before you spout off about the real world you adult-child.
"No, they can't because of the First Amendment. Section 230 would shield them for things that other people did on their platform, it's irrelevant to anything they do themselves."
When YouTube removes a video from a doctor and says that they removed the doctor for posting medical misinformation that is libel. It isn't a third party accusing the doctor of misinformation. That is YouTube itself making a severely defamatory accusation in the context of a medical professional.
Section 230 should not immunize YouTube or any other big tech from defaming others.
"Yes, there's reasons for that. Maybe you should mull over the differences between physical accommodation and websites before you continue on this idiotic road."
You are the morons who used the physical example. Don't cry when its turned back on you because you had no idea how hard it is to actually kick someone off your physical property.
Cable and internet are both regulated under the broad power of the Commutations Act, this gives the government the authority to regulate all wireless and wired communication.
Big Tech sits under the dame regulatory framework as all other communications.
"Although, I don't see why the origin of the virus matters in the slightest. Usually, it's presented as part of an attempt to spread conspiracy theories that convince people not to do things that halt the spread of a global pandemic, so I understand why platforms might side with actual experts on the subject."
This is why you or Big Tech shouldn't be making such decisions and such decisions shouldn't be made at all.
As former CDC director Redfield stated when interviewed stated that the CDC and the governemtn as a while was operating under hte assumptoin that this was a SARS-Like virus when it was not that at all.
Had Fauci and his people not kept the secret to themselves we may have known just how contagious this virus was a lot sooner.
Of course Dr. Daszak, Facui's buddy knew. He was boasting in 2016 about his colleagues in China creating 'real killer' coronaviruses that are engineered to target human cells.
Now its odd that those on the left are all about precautionary principle so why doesn't that apply to this?
If we knew, or at least Fauci knew, as early as January 2020, that there was a real probability that was an engineered virus specifically manipulated to target human cells, shouldn't he have shared that? Shouldn't that have been or operating principle?
But Facebook, Google, Etc. can clearly libel people in their take downs and those who suffer this normally legally actionable tort have no legal recourse because Big Tech hides behind section 230.
If you take down a video of one of the worlds most respected epidemiologists calling it misinformation because he doesn't agree that lockdowns are effective that claim of "misinformation" is libel. Section 230 should not immunize them from attacking a professionals professional reputation.
Thats our law. Every cable provider has to proved channels for networks so long as the networks content doesn't violate federal law. That is our law. No one is making Big Tech abide by rules that other platforms don't have to abide by.
Oh shut up with your citations needed, you god damn sealion. That is all you do is sealion.
How many people who live in Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco were born there? Native brain drain is a well known "problem" in these cities. The influx of far leftists drive the native born population out.
Dr. Knut Wittkowski one of the most renowned epidemiologists in the world has a video taken down as misinformation because he disagreed on the effectiveness of lockdowns. That is a libelous accusation and he should be able to sue YouTube but he cant because, Section 230.
These examples are endless. You are just sealion! All you ever say is cite evidence or 'presents facts not in evidence.'
You clearly have no clue on "public housing." Yes I may be ultimately able to kick out an unruly tenant but there is a litany of local, state, and federal regulatory hoops I must jump through.
What's amazing with Big Tech is despite their economic power how little regulation they fall under.
The FCC requires an cable provider to carry channels that do not otherwise violate federal law. And the supreme court has long ago ruled that these rules do not violate the cable providers free speech.
Your legal arguments always seem to be 'I don't like the present law!!!'
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"HyCl, you are claiming that the majority of doctors ignored evidence that it was effective, a conspiracy of such a scale as to be impossible to maintain."
We already lived through that conspiracy once. It was called the AIDS crisis. They managed to maintain that conspiracy for almost 2 decades. There is even a good movie about it.
As a result we the people pushed back against big Pharma and the ABC bureaucracy, FDA, NIH etc. We passed right to try legislation.
As a result our law today is that if a drug is FDA approved for one treatment a doctor and patient with informed consent can use it for an off label treatment.
A large part. And I mean a very very large part of the current HCQ/Ivermectin fiasco is a bureaucratic end around of the law.
Zuckerberg and "Tony" have gotten so buddy buddy that big tech is going to ban any discussion of off-label use even though off-label use is perfectly legal and safe. This censorship is in effect gutting right to try laws.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: Re: Re: Why Does that Matter
"My experience is that when someone uses "big tech" to describe a small subset of tech companies that doesn't include entire tech industries, they're not arguing in good faith."
Its very much an argument in good faith. The law recognizes market power relative to the duty of the business. Such as the duty of a cable provider to proved lease channels is relative to their size.
Taking size and market share into account is not odd is a regulatory sense.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: Re: Re: Why Does that Matter
Again you are making up law.
"Not when by "Big Tech" you don't mean the ISP's and cable providers. Road builders are under infrastructure regulations, General Motors and MacDonald's are not.
Facebook, Google and Amazon aren't infrastructure. They're users of infrastructure."
If I'm a private road contractor I'm under DOT regulation. If work for GM I'm also under DOT regulation.
I know you think for the sake of your argument that this is the way the is but its not.
At this stage you are making it up. Do some research before you post for god's sake.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dumb
"Most industries have regulations and laws they have to follow because it has been proven that they otherwise prey or cause harm"
No that is not why. Is because its in the "public interest" that is the Munn standard. That is all the Munn standard says. You are moving the goal posts.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st
"I await your admission that you were totally full of shit."
I never expected the initial court to rule in Florida's favor. The plaintiffs filed that suit at exactly the right time in exactly the right district knowing with near certainty which judge they would draw.
With as precise as judge shopping has become in the 21st century the district court ruling is basically meaningless.
You can pat yourself on the back but this is far from over.
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st
"Facts aren't libel, you shit-for-brains sheep."
Then prove it in court. Don't say 'nah nah nah section 230 you cant sue me'
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dumb
" tenant negotiating the terms of rent and paying for the privilege of renting a property?"
The state procedure for evicting a tenant has nothing to do with the terms of the lease. Its the law you child. Any reflection of the legal procedure in the lease is just that a reflection of the existing law. A lease that didn't comply with the 30+ pages of regulation in my state would not be a legal lease.
God damn you are an ignorant child.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dumb
"That's the contract terms you signed to"
Its not the contract terms. The only reason it states that in the contract is because that is what the law requires. Its state law genius. I know you live with your parents basement but come on.
" You agreed to their ToS when you signed up and those ToS say they can toss you out on the spot whenever they feel the desire to do so, without grievance."
But as a landlord I cant write that into my contract can I? My contract has to conform to the 30+ pages of procedural regulations on evicting a tenant. Other industries just cant make up their own rules. Other industries have layers upon layers of regulation that their contract has to conform to. Why is BigTech exempt?
Get a life before you spout off about the real world you adult-child.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thats What!
"No, they can't because of the First Amendment. Section 230 would shield them for things that other people did on their platform, it's irrelevant to anything they do themselves."
When YouTube removes a video from a doctor and says that they removed the doctor for posting medical misinformation that is libel. It isn't a third party accusing the doctor of misinformation. That is YouTube itself making a severely defamatory accusation in the context of a medical professional.
Section 230 should not immunize YouTube or any other big tech from defaming others.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: Re: Re: Re: Very Dumb, example of Dumb
"Yes, there's reasons for that. Maybe you should mull over the differences between physical accommodation and websites before you continue on this idiotic road."
You are the morons who used the physical example. Don't cry when its turned back on you because you had no idea how hard it is to actually kick someone off your physical property.
No go ask your mom for a hot-pocket.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: Why Does that Matter
Cable and internet are both regulated under the broad power of the Commutations Act, this gives the government the authority to regulate all wireless and wired communication.
Big Tech sits under the dame regulatory framework as all other communications.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thats What!
"Although, I don't see why the origin of the virus matters in the slightest. Usually, it's presented as part of an attempt to spread conspiracy theories that convince people not to do things that halt the spread of a global pandemic, so I understand why platforms might side with actual experts on the subject."
This is why you or Big Tech shouldn't be making such decisions and such decisions shouldn't be made at all.
As former CDC director Redfield stated when interviewed stated that the CDC and the governemtn as a while was operating under hte assumptoin that this was a SARS-Like virus when it was not that at all.
"By calling it SARS-like, we mounted a public health response that was mirrored off SARS. The problem is, COVID is nothing like SARS,' Redfield said, adding that response was 'flawed'."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/robert-redfield-covid-leaked-from-lab-afte r-being-examined/ar-AAL4C5m
Had Fauci and his people not kept the secret to themselves we may have known just how contagious this virus was a lot sooner.
Of course Dr. Daszak, Facui's buddy knew. He was boasting in 2016 about his colleagues in China creating 'real killer' coronaviruses that are engineered to target human cells.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?404875-1/pandemics
Now its odd that those on the left are all about precautionary principle so why doesn't that apply to this?
If we knew, or at least Fauci knew, as early as January 2020, that there was a real probability that was an engineered virus specifically manipulated to target human cells, shouldn't he have shared that? Shouldn't that have been or operating principle?
On the post: Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine
Re: Re: Platforms Can't Claim the 1st
But Facebook, Google, Etc. can clearly libel people in their take downs and those who suffer this normally legally actionable tort have no legal recourse because Big Tech hides behind section 230.
If you take down a video of one of the worlds most respected epidemiologists calling it misinformation because he doesn't agree that lockdowns are effective that claim of "misinformation" is libel. Section 230 should not immunize them from attacking a professionals professional reputation.
On the post: Creating State Action Via Antitrust Law And Making The People Who've Been Wrong About The Constitutionality Of Content Moderation Suddenly Right
Re: Re: Re:
Thats our law. Every cable provider has to proved channels for networks so long as the networks content doesn't violate federal law. That is our law. No one is making Big Tech abide by rules that other platforms don't have to abide by.
On the post: Creating State Action Via Antitrust Law And Making The People Who've Been Wrong About The Constitutionality Of Content Moderation Suddenly Right
Re: Re: Re: Re: lol
Oh shut up with your citations needed, you god damn sealion. That is all you do is sealion.
How many people who live in Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco were born there? Native brain drain is a well known "problem" in these cities. The influx of far leftists drive the native born population out.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Dumb Examples
Keep seeing this example of I can kick anyone I want off my property.
lol
TechDirt is based in California.
You can go here and start the process to 'just kick anyone you want off of your property'
https://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-eviction.htm
Its about a 15 step process with over 100 pages of regulation.
God the regulars here have no life.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: Re: Dumb
"Facebook and Twitter are private property. Their house, their rules. This is what you call anti-American, you entitled whiny dipshit?"
I wish that applied to my landlord tenant relations. I cant even enter my own property without giving my tenant 24 hours notice.
In my state the .gov listed procedure for evicting a tenant is over 30 pages long and we are a relatively lightly regulated state.
Jesus you are ignorant. You clearly have no life so you don't understand at all the rules the rest of us live under.
You live in your parents basement don't you?
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thats What!
Dr. Knut Wittkowski one of the most renowned epidemiologists in the world has a video taken down as misinformation because he disagreed on the effectiveness of lockdowns. That is a libelous accusation and he should be able to sue YouTube but he cant because, Section 230.
These examples are endless. You are just sealion! All you ever say is cite evidence or 'presents facts not in evidence.'
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: Re: Very Dumb, example of Dumb
You clearly have no clue on "public housing." Yes I may be ultimately able to kick out an unruly tenant but there is a litany of local, state, and federal regulatory hoops I must jump through.
What's amazing with Big Tech is despite their economic power how little regulation they fall under.
On the post: Marco Rubio Jumps To The Head Of The Line Of Ignorant Fools Pushing Dumb Social Media Regulation Bills
Re: We Already Do
We already do. This is asked and answered law.
The FCC requires an cable provider to carry channels that do not otherwise violate federal law. And the supreme court has long ago ruled that these rules do not violate the cable providers free speech.
Your legal arguments always seem to be 'I don't like the present law!!!'
Cry me a river.
Next >>