Jump to content

Zuckerberg admits censorship.


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Screenshot_20240906_182129_Firefox.thumb.jpg.2a54dacf053f84858e2b75daa8571f7a.jpg

It's a Flippin synonym. Just stop.

You've not provided ANY evidence the Steele Dossier is FALSE.

According to NYT the only thing which was shown to be false was Michael Cohen's alleged meeting with Russian officials in Prague during the campaign. Big Whup.

Donald J. Trump and his backers say revelations about the Steele dossier show the Russia investigation was a “hoax.” That is not what the facts indicate.

Quote

What was the main impact of the dossier?

Beyond its narrow role in facilitating the F.B.I.’s wiretap of Mr. Page, the dossier’s publication had the broader consequence of amplifying an atmosphere of suspicion about Mr. Trump.

Still, the dossier did not create this atmosphere of suspicion. Mr. Trump’s relationship with Russia had been a topic of significant discussion dating back to the campaign, including before the first report that Russia had hacked Democrats and before Mr. Steele drafted his reports and gave some to reporters.

Among the reasons: Mr. Trump had said flattering things about Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, kept bringing on advisers with ties to Russia, had financial ties to Russia, publicly encouraged Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton, and at his nominating convention, the party dropped a plank that called for arming Ukraine against Russian-backed rebels. In March 2017, the F.B.I. publicly acknowledged that it was investigating links between Russia and Trump campaign associates.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You've not provided ANY evidence the Steele Dossier is FALSE.

According to NYT the only thing which was shown to be false was Michael Cohen's alleged meeting with Russian officials in Prague during the campaign. Big Whup.

Donald J. Trump and his backers say revelations about the Steele dossier show the Russia investigation was a “hoax.” That is not what the facts indicate.

 

No, the CNN article talked about how all of the media was so wrong about the Steele dossier. You just don't want to believe it because your fantasy world won't allow it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

No, the CNN article talked about how all of the media was so wrong about the Steele dossier.

Bad reporting doesn't make it false. Quote the CNN article saying what is false.

5 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

You just don't want to believe it because your fantasy world won't allow it.

I don't believe YOU, because you FAIL to QUOTE EVIDENCE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Bad reporting doesn't make it false. Quote the CNN article saying what is false.

I don't believe YOU, because you FAIL to QUOTE EVIDENCE.

I did quote it in the very first quote. They said it is discredited but you pulled your Lil biotch move with the whole discredited doesn't mean false so I used MerriamWebster to show you that falsified and discredited mean the same thing and now you are back to saying I didn't prove it. I Flippin proved it. I used liberal sources. I defined words (because apparently you don't know what words mean). I did absolutely everything. The problem isn't me. It is you. You are delusional. You live in a fantasy world. You refuse to acknowledge reality. I can't do any more. You are hopeless, sitting at you sad little desktop in your lonely little room you come here and argue ridiculous positions. Why? To get some attention? Is that what you want? Because there is no logical reason for you to refuse to believe that the Steele dossier is discredited/false. It is a basic fact of life.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, User said:

Question... how? Making false statements about them is not questioning them. Drawing false doubts about them is not merely questioning them. 

See, this is why I ask you about not trusting any modern medicine, as you have now steered the discussion directly into being anti-vaccine, not just about the COVID vaccine, but all of them. 

There is only what is true and what is not true, what Goddess said was false. I pointed this out in several instances. It is not a matter of her over CNN... 

Well, you are not doing much better with all your vague "Big Pharma" stuff. 

There is what's true and there's what we were told about the covid jabs

The same people who told you the covid jabs were safe and effective and that young people needed the covid jab are telling us all the old vaccines are safe and effective.  Now we know that they're liars who don't give a shit about your health. 

What do you do with that knowledge? 

 

When it came time to get my son vaccinated, starting in late 2011 until about 2015, we just trusted our doctor without question because it seemed like a normal thing to do. I'd rate my trust in my family doctor at that point at about 10/10. 

I still think it's important to get kids vaccinated against a whole host of serious bugs, but I'd actually do way more research before I did something like that again. 

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

Kamala didn't get where she is because of her achievements or anything that came out of her mouth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

There is what's true and there's what we were told about the covid jabs

The same people who told you the covid jabs were safe and effective and that young people needed the covid jab are telling us all the old vaccines are safe and effective.  Now we know that they're liars who don't give a shit about your health. 

What do you do with that knowledge? 

Who are these "the same people?"

Just more vagueness. 

I bet "the same people" also shop at Walmart, drink water, and sleep at night. Well, crap, I guess I better reevaluate my entire life for everything "the same people" might have done or said.

What do I do with that knowledge? Nothing regarding vaccines. The same reason they were safe before didn't change after. 

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

When it came time to get my son vaccinated, starting in late 2011 until about 2015, we just trusted our doctor without question because it seemed like a normal thing to do. I'd rate my trust in my family doctor at that point at about 10/10. 

I still think it's important to get kids vaccinated against a whole host of serious bugs, but I'd actually do way more research before I did something like that again. 

Is your doctor part of "Big Pharma?"

I don't think you can ever go to your doctor again. In fact, if you break your leg... get an infection, I would rely 100% on whatever paste Goddess can conjure up for you. 

You just got done saying: "That Goddess is somehow wrong to start questioning all vaccines."

Now you are saying it is important to get kids vaccinated. 

Edited by User

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Goddess said:

I said I think they should all be re-evaluated. 🙄

So, you agree vaccines are safe, then? Why should they all be re-evaluated?

This is the problem when you refuse to answer questions. You are playing games trying to sow doubt without having the courage to just say what you really mean here. 

5 hours ago, Goddess said:

LOL.  Wow, I've posted repeatedly about the use of vents and remdesivir (which started in NY), lots of links and references. The US stopped using vents because that's what was killing people.  It's why Canada's vents sat un-used and were just recently sold for scrap.

You pretending to not know what I think is pretty lame-o.

Yet again, you didn't actually respond to anything I said. This is not an issue with what I do or do not know, when you wont say. 

So, is your position that the only deaths from COVID were from the misuse of ventilators?

 

  • Downvote 1

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, User said:

Who are these "the same people?"

Just more vagueness. 

I bet "the same people" also shop at Walmart, drink water, and sleep at night. Well, crap, I guess I better reevaluate my entire life for everything "the same people" might have done or said.

I didn't specifically say "NiH, CDC, major health publications" but we know they all lied and exaggerated/omitted.

Their conduct was shameful. 

Honestly if VW did what the aforementioned orgs did, and caused that much death and serious harm, they would be out of business. None of those guys are any better than Purdue. 

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

Kamala didn't get where she is because of her achievements or anything that came out of her mouth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2024 at 8:56 PM, User said:

So, you agree vaccines are safe, then? Why should they all be re-evaluated?

I'll give you an example:  annual flu shots.

Public health experts have long assumed flu shots were effective in the elderly. But, paradoxically, all the studies done failed to demonstrate an acceptable benefit. Instead of considering that they, the experts, could be wrong – instead of believing the scientific data – the public health experts assumed the studies were wrong. After all, flu shots have to work, right?

An important and definitive “mainstream” government study done nearly a decade ago got little attention because the science came down on the wrong side of the narrative Big Pharma was promoting. It found that after decades and billions of dollars spent promoting flu shots for the elderly, the mass vaccination program did not result in saving lives. In fact, the death rate among the elderly increased substantially.

So the NIH launched an effort to do “the” definitive study that would actually prove, for the first time, once and for all, that flu shots were beneficial to the elderly. The government would gather some of the brightest scientific minds for the research, and adjust for all kinds of factors that could be masking that presumed benefit.

But when they finished, no matter how they crunched the numbers, the data kept telling the same story: flu shots were of no benefit to the elderly. Quite the opposite. The death rate had increased markedly since widespread flu vaccination among older Americans. 

The lead author of the study, Lone Simonsen, had agreed to do an on camera interview with the media on her study results, which she felt were very important. However, her bosses at the National Institutes of Health blocked the interview.

However, here is her commentary on her study:

Commentary: Benefits of influenza vaccine in US elderly—new studies raise questions | International Journal of Epidemiology | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

Dr. Walter Orenstein was among the first to notice the problem when he headed up the Centers for Disease Control’s national immunization program.  Below is a transcript of his 2006 interview with Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News:

Quote

Dr. Orenstein: “What is absolutely clear is that there is still a substantial burden of deaths and hospitalizations out there that has not been prevented through the present strategy.”
Here’s what scientists have found. Over 20 years, the percentage of seniors getting flu shots increased sharply from 15% to 65%. It stands to reason that flu deaths among the elderly should have taken a dramatic dip making an “X” graph like this (refers to graphic). Instead, flu deaths among the elderly continued to climb. It was hard to believe, so researchers at the National Institutes of Health set out to do a study adjusting for all kinds of factors that could be masking the true benefits of the shots. But no matter how they crunched the numbers, they got the same disappointing result: flu shots had not reduced deaths among the elderly. It’s not what health officials hoped to find. NIH wouldn’t let us interview the study’s lead author. So we went to Boston and found the only co-author of the study not employed by NIH: Dr. Tom Reichert.
Dr. Reichert: “We realized we had incendiary material.”
Dr. Reichert said they thought their study would prove vaccinations helped.
Dr. Reichert: “We were trying to do something mainstream. That’s for sure.”
Sharyl: “Were you surprised?”
Dr. Reichert: “Astonished.”
Sharyl: “Did you check the data a couple of times to make sure?”
Dr. Reichert: “Well, even more than that. We’ve looked at other countries now and the same is true.”
That international study, soon to be published, finds the same poor results in Australia, France, Canada and the UK. And other new research stokes the idea that decades of promoting flu shots in seniors, and the billions spent, haven’t had the desired result. The current head of national immunizations confirms CDC is now looking at new strategies, but stops short of calling the present strategy a failure.
Dr. Anne Schuchat: “There’s an active dialogue about how we can do better to prevent influenza and its complications in the elderly.”

In that interview, this part was quite prophetic:

So what’s an older person to do? The CDC says they should still get their flu shots. That it could make the flu less severe or prevent problems not reflected in the total numbers. But watch for CDC to likely shift in the near future more toward protecting the elderly in a roundabout way by pushing to vaccinate more children and others around them who could give them the flu.

And here's the study:

Impact of Influenza Vaccination on Seasonal Mortality in the US Elderly Population | Geriatrics | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network

In our study, however, we examined influenza-related deaths in the entire US elderly population by estimating seasonal numbers of excess all-cause deaths. These estimates, which provide the best available national estimates of the fraction of all winter deaths that are specifically attributable to influenza,5,28 show that the observational studies must overstate the mortality benefits of the vaccine. For the 33 seasons studied, influenza-related mortality (excess all-cause mortality) was always less than 10% of the total number of winter deaths among the elderly (Table 1). This period included the 1968 pandemic and the severe 1997-1998 season29 during which the mismatched vaccine formulation provided little protection30; for both of these seasons, the estimated influenza-related mortality was probably very close to what would have occurred had no vaccine been available. We conclude, therefore, that there are not enough influenza-related deaths to support the conclusion that vaccination can reduce total winter mortality among the US elderly population by as much as half.

Our findings indicate that the mortality benefits of influenza vaccination may be substantially less than previously thought but for different reasons among different age groups. 

Here is an Italian study showing the same results as the other countries:

Influenza-related mortality in the Italian elderly: No decline associated with increasing vaccination coverage - ScienceDirect

I work in healthcare during H1N1 and asked the doc I worked for if I should get that shot or other flu shots and he told me NO.  He said he saw no benefit in annual flu shots to his elderly patients and that in many cases, he saw their health went downhill because of them.  He would give them the shot if they wanted it, but he never pushed it on his patients.

The doc I worked for was one of the VERY FEW I saw who actually kept up with medical studies.  Most docs get their info from MSM, just like you do.  And from Pharma reps who visit them regularly and give incentives for prescribing their drugs.

This is also worth a read:

Education: Flu Vaccine - Physicians for Informed Consent

So, yes.  I think all vaccines should be independently re-evaluated.

  • Like 1

"There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe."

~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the graph of NYC deaths.

Image

It's quite different from every other city, in that there is no "waves".  Just a sharp spike in March/April of 2020.

Testimony in Congress is that this indicates some type of "event", like a bombing or natural disaster.  A bunch of deaths within a few weeks and then......nothing.

 

"There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe."

~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/11/2024 at 2:43 PM, Goddess said:

I'll give you an example:  annual flu shots.

You ignore my questions over and over again. 

On 9/11/2024 at 2:43 PM, Goddess said:

It found that after decades and billions of dollars spent promoting flu shots for the elderly, the mass vaccination program did not result in saving lives. In fact, the death rate among the elderly increased substantially.

I read the study you provided, it doesn't say or draw the conclusions you are saying it does here. 

It doesn't say the death rate among the elderly increased substantially, it said it continued to increase. 

The recommendation was that we need a better vaccine, and to consider other risk mitigations like vaccinating children or others who might spread the flu to the elderly. 

Nothing in that study said anything about the vaccine being unsafe, which is what we are talking about here. It was merely a question of how effective it was in the elderly. 

On 9/11/2024 at 2:43 PM, Goddess said:

So, yes.  I think all vaccines should be independently re-evaluated.

So... your big argument here is that flu shots are not as effective in the elderly as we hoped they would be... so all vaccines are bad and unsafe?

You keep saying vaccines need to be studied... yet you just got done sourcing a bunch of studies on this subject. 

Seems that they are being studied after all, as you are here citing those studies. 

 

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2024 at 5:26 PM, Goddess said:

It's quite different from every other city, in that there is no "waves".  Just a sharp spike in March/April of 2020.

Testimony in Congress is that this indicates some type of "event", like a bombing or natural disaster.  A bunch of deaths within a few weeks and then......nothing.

Of course, there are no waves... you are looking at one year of data. 

Show us 2019 through 2022. 

Also, NYC was one of the most locked down places in response to that as well... 

So, stop hiding and tell us what you are asserting here. Are you saying there was no COVID in New York City? That there was no pandemic? Come on now, stop beating around the bush. Lets hear it. 

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2024 at 8:01 PM, robosmith said:

Bad reporting doesn't make it false. Quote the CNN article saying what is false.

I don't believe YOU, because you FAIL to QUOTE EVIDENCE.

Hilarious...

Robo...do you realize anyone can come to this site and read the posts? Like...are you sure you want people to read this...incredibly dumb position...and know conclusively what a dope you are?

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, User said:

I read the study you provided, it doesn't say or draw the conclusions you are saying it does here. 

Weird.  I actually quoted the pertinent parts of the study.

Try reading again, maybe?

"There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe."

~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, User said:

Come on now, stop beating around the bush. Lets hear it. 

LOL

One thing I have NOT done here is beat around the bush.  I'm sorry you're late to the party, but I'm not summarizing 4 years of research into one sentence just for you.

There's 2 main threads with lots of me NOT beating around the bush.  And lots of threads sprinkled with my posts on the subject.  I haven't hidden what I think or why I've come to those conclusions.

"There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe."

~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

Weird.  I actually quoted the pertinent parts of the study.

Try reading again, maybe?

No, you didn't. 

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

LOL

One thing I have NOT done here is beat around the bush.  I'm sorry you're late to the party, but I'm not summarizing 4 years of research into one sentence just for you.

There's 2 main threads with lots of me NOT beating around the bush.  And lots of threads sprinkled with my posts on the subject.  I haven't hidden what I think or why I've come to those conclusions.

You have all the time in the world to dodge the question with this nonsense answer... but no time to just answer a simple question. 

If you are so proud of your position, it should be easy to tell us what it is. 

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, User said:

If you are so proud of your position, it should be easy to tell us what it is. 

I've done that for years.

"There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe."

~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I've done that for years.

So you no longer have any convictions here that you are willing to stand behind?

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

More Big Tech censoring of information to help sway an election.

Former President Trump’s campaign worked with Elon Musk’s X to prevent links to hacked campaign materials from circulating on the social media platform last month, according to The New York Times

America...."the worlds largest, best-armed shopping mall."-Ivor Tossell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

More Big Tech censoring of information to help sway an election.

Former President Trump’s campaign worked with Elon Musk’s X to prevent links to hacked campaign materials from circulating on the social media platform last month, according to The New York Times

Musk is a deep believer in free speech and non-moderation--except when beliefs are inconvenient.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the original issue, did the government force Facebook to censor the covid conspiracies etc or just ask them to?

Forcing them to would be a 1st amendment free speech issue for Facebook (meaning Facebook's free speech right to control content on their own privately owned property).

But if it was not coersive, then Facebook was just willingly using their private property to allow the type content they wish while willingly following a request from the government.

Edited by Matthew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Matthew said:

On the original issue, did the government force Facebook to censor the covid conspiracies etc or just ask them to?

Forcing them to world be a 1st amendment free speech issue for Facebook (meaning Facebook's free speech right to control content on their own privately owned property).

But if it was not coersive, then Facebook was just willingly using their private property to allow the type content they wish while willingly following a request from the government.

If I recall, they didn't even explicitly ask Facebook to censor. They presented the fact misinformation and disinformation were a dangerous problem and Facebook was a responsible corporate citizen and took steps to resolve it. Twitter did the same. Responsible moderation is an important part of running a platform. And abandoning that responsibility is how Musk has destroyed 80% of the value of Twitter.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,818
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nibu
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • CouchPotato went up a rank
      Experienced
    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Contributor
    • nibu earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...