Donald Trump Wins US Presidency for a Second Time
Donald Trump Wins US Presidency for a Second Time
Trump won USA Presidential Elections đđșđžđđ Who is going to celebrate tonight? đŸđ
I do truly look forward for it đ€
You're viewing part of a thread.
The difference is Covid was justified.
So it isn't fascism when you think it's justified. Would you say the same thing about genocide or persecuton? How are are you willing to go with the idea that the ends justify the means?
It isn't fascism when healthcare systems get overwhelmed, an unprecedented level of people are dying, and every expert was advising for the measures that were implemented (and more in a lot of cases). There were reasons these rules were put in place. And it wasn't for anyone's ego or political points.
So in other words... The ends justify the means?
No.
Really? That sounds like what you're saying: it's acceptable to censor information, criminalize going outsid and not wearing a piece of cloth if it's for a good cause. Namely, it's okay to do these things if fewer people die of a disease. This is, in fact, justifying the means by pointing to the goal (the ends). Can you explain the distinction between what you're saying and how I've explained it?
You're sources don't support the censorship of information. Just calling out supposed "vaccine hesitancy" and saying to stop it due to its impact on the public health. And yes temporary measure to wear masks and isolate is perfectly acceptable given the circumstances.
I would suggest you actually lookup examples of fascism and compare it to what yoy see today. Try send connect the dots.
Literally the first paragraph from the article by the US Congress:
Newly released documents show that the White House has played a major role in censoring Americans on social media. Email exchanges between Rob Flaherty, the White Houseâs director of digital media, and social-media executives prove the companies put Covid censorship policies in place in response to relentless, coercive pressure from the White Houseânot voluntarily. The emails emerged Jan. 6 in the discovery phase of Missouri v. Biden, a free-speech case brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana and four private plaintiffs represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance.
And now you admit that the ends justify the means?
Don't cherrypick quotes. What does the next 2 paragraph say?
I'm not sure why you're insisting on not actually reading the document but alright:
On March 14, 2021, Mr. Flaherty emailed a Facebook executive (whose name weâve redacted as a courtesy) with the subject line âYou are hiding the ballâ and a link to a Washington Post article about Facebookâs own research into âthe spread of ideas that contribute to vaccine hesitancy,â as the paper put it. âI think there is a misunderstanding,â the executive wrote back. âI donât think this is a misunderstanding,â Mr. Flaherty replied. âWe are gravely concerned that your service is one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancyâperiod. . . . We want to know that youâre trying, we want to know how we can help, and we want to know that youâre not playing a shell game. . . . This would all be a lot easier if you would just be straight with us.â
Emphasis mine is the government explaining the need for, and the demanding, censorship.
Next paragraph:
On March 21, after failing to placate Mr. Flaherty, the Facebook executive sent an email detailing the companyâs planned policy changes. They included âremoving vaccine misinformationâ and âreducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation.â Facebook characterized this material as âoften-true contentâ that âcan be framed as sensation, alarmist, or shocking.â Facebook pledged to âremove these Groups, Pages, and Accounts when they are disproportionately promoting this sensationalized content.â
This paragraph details how Facebook, under pressure from the government, agreed to remove information. That is, the government censored information. If you'd like to argue that a private individual being coerced into deleting something isn't censorship, then perhaps you'd say the same about a newspaper being forced to not run a story about a government killing?
And for the sake of getting further context, let's look at the next few paragraphs:
In that exchange, Mr. Flaherty demanded to know what Facebook was doing to âlimit the spread of viral contentâ on WhatsApp, a private message app, especially âgiven its reach in immigrant communities and communities of color.â The company responded three weeks later with a lengthy list of promises.
Further explaining government demands for censorship.
On April 9, Mr. Flaherty asked âwhat actions and changes youâre making to ensure . . . youâre not making our countryâs vaccine hesitancy problem worse.â He faulted the company for insufficient zeal in earlier efforts to control political speech: âIn the electoral context, you tested and deployed an algorithmic shift that promoted quality news and information about the election. . . . You only did this, however, after an election that you helped increase skepticism in, and an insurrection which was plotted, in large part, by your platform. And then you turned it back off. I want some assurances, based in data, that you are not doing the same thing again here.â The executiveâs response: âUnderstood.â
The government, again, demands censorship.
On April 23, Mr. Flaherty sent the executive an internal memo that he claimed had been circulating in the White House. It asserts that âFacebook plays a major role in the spread of COVID vaccine misinformationâ and accuses the company of, among other things, âfailure to monitor events hosting anti-vaccine and COVID disinformationâ and âdirecting attention to COVID-skeptics/anti-vaccine âtrustedâ messengers.
More pressure from the government.
On May 10, the executive sent Mr. Flaherty a list of steps Facebook had taken âto increase vaccine acceptance.â Mr. Flaherty scoffed, âHard to take any of this seriously when youâre actively promoting anti-vaccine pages in search,â and linked to an NBC reporterâs tweet. The executive wrote back: âThanks Robâboth of the accounts featured in this tweet have been removed from Instagram entirely for breaking our policies.â
And this is a very clear example of censorship happening.
I think you get the idea. If you'd like to dispute what the article says, why don't you read it yourself?