FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Remove Anti-Vaxxer posts on Fab?
Remove Anti-Vaxxer posts on Fab?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the Government may consider requiring Anti-Vaxxer and Conspiracy posts to be removed from social media, should Fab be doing the same?" I can't see why it shouldn't technically be subject to the same criteria and enforcement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the Government may consider requiring Anti-Vaxxer and Conspiracy posts to be removed from social media, should Fab be doing the same?" People are entitled to their opinions, even if they're wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" People are entitled to their opinions, even if they're wrong." Yes they are. There's no entitlement to a tea chest to express them on though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the Government may consider requiring Anti-Vaxxer and Conspiracy posts to be removed from social media, should Fab be doing the same? People are entitled to their opinions, even if they're wrong." Does still apply when people get hurt and property is damaged? I'm think about bt openreach techs being attacked and masts damaged? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its a slippy slope for a number of reasons. Firstly who's to decide whats abhorrent and whats not? Not that long ago what we're all doing on here would have been seen as massively socially unacceptable. Secondly blocking people from saying something or expressing an opinion rarely if ever gets them to change their opinion. If anything forcing the conversation underground is more likely to entrench the view. The MAN knew we were on to something and shut us down. I'm sure people will say that false information is dangerous. And they're right but do we want to live in a nanny state where we are told what to do and think? Where is personal responsibility? Give me dangerous freedom over peaceful servitude any day. D" It's a slippery slope that we all live with, though, and always have done. Even in the US there are limitations on free speech. But free speech is what the *government* can punish you for saying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fab will need to decide what it is willing to host in its space or not. Fab will be bound by legal obligations in the UK and possibly other jurisdictions as to limitations on content. Apart from that, it's a bit like a virtual equivalent of someone's living room. You have the right to tell Mr. F. Swinger that his mother is a hamster and his father smells of elderberries, but Mr. F. Swinger is within his rights not to tolerate that and kick you out." I think I view fab as a bit different to social media though. Social media platforms are almost become general public forum rather than closed group. I agree with your analogy that Fab is someone's sitting room. But I would argue Facebook/Twitter are now speakers corner or that crazy bloke that always shouts at me outside Kings Cross | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the Government may consider requiring Anti-Vaxxer and Conspiracy posts to be removed from social media, should Fab be doing the same?" Let them spout their nonsense. But if and when they catch something that can be vaccinated against, don't give them a jab. Seems obvious to me. Makes a good filter too, them and the rest of the covidiots. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fab will need to decide what it is willing to host in its space or not. Fab will be bound by legal obligations in the UK and possibly other jurisdictions as to limitations on content. Apart from that, it's a bit like a virtual equivalent of someone's living room. You have the right to tell Mr. F. Swinger that his mother is a hamster and his father smells of elderberries, but Mr. F. Swinger is within his rights not to tolerate that and kick you out. I think I view fab as a bit different to social media though. Social media platforms are almost become general public forum rather than closed group. I agree with your analogy that Fab is someone's sitting room. But I would argue Facebook/Twitter are now speakers corner or that crazy bloke that always shouts at me outside Kings Cross" I do think the rules are going to change for social media platforms. Their defence of just being the carrier doesn't work anymore. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...or that crazy bloke that always shouts at me outside Kings Cross" I was only saying hello...  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fab will need to decide what it is willing to host in its space or not. Fab will be bound by legal obligations in the UK and possibly other jurisdictions as to limitations on content. Apart from that, it's a bit like a virtual equivalent of someone's living room. You have the right to tell Mr. F. Swinger that his mother is a hamster and his father smells of elderberries, but Mr. F. Swinger is within his rights not to tolerate that and kick you out. I think I view fab as a bit different to social media though. Social media platforms are almost become general public forum rather than closed group. I agree with your analogy that Fab is someone's sitting room. But I would argue Facebook/Twitter are now speakers corner or that crazy bloke that always shouts at me outside Kings Cross" Fab is a business which hosts user content. That user content can be controlled according to the terms that Fab sets (his house, his rules). I am not saying what Fab should or should not do, but just what they're within their rights to do. There are plenty of places to spout about the evils of vaccines if you want to. You don't have to be in Fab's living room to do so, if they don't want you to be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fab will need to decide what it is willing to host in its space or not. Fab will be bound by legal obligations in the UK and possibly other jurisdictions as to limitations on content. Apart from that, it's a bit like a virtual equivalent of someone's living room. You have the right to tell Mr. F. Swinger that his mother is a hamster and his father smells of elderberries, but Mr. F. Swinger is within his rights not to tolerate that and kick you out. I think I view fab as a bit different to social media though. Social media platforms are almost become general public forum rather than closed group. I agree with your analogy that Fab is someone's sitting room. But I would argue Facebook/Twitter are now speakers corner or that crazy bloke that always shouts at me outside Kings Cross I do think the rules are going to change for social media platforms. Their defence of just being the carrier doesn't work anymore." It will be interesting to see how that develops. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fab will need to decide what it is willing to host in its space or not. Fab will be bound by legal obligations in the UK and possibly other jurisdictions as to limitations on content. Apart from that, it's a bit like a virtual equivalent of someone's living room. You have the right to tell Mr. F. Swinger that his mother is a hamster and his father smells of elderberries, but Mr. F. Swinger is within his rights not to tolerate that and kick you out. I think I view fab as a bit different to social media though. Social media platforms are almost become general public forum rather than closed group. I agree with your analogy that Fab is someone's sitting room. But I would argue Facebook/Twitter are now speakers corner or that crazy bloke that always shouts at me outside Kings Cross I do think the rules are going to change for social media platforms. Their defence of just being the carrier doesn't work anymore." I think you're right in thats what will happen but I think they are perfectly right to argue they are just a carrier. People are perfectly within their rights to say the earth is flat and Bill Gates wants to inject a microchip in them. Just as much as I am within my rights to laugh my arse off at them  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fab will need to decide what it is willing to host in its space or not. Fab will be bound by legal obligations in the UK and possibly other jurisdictions as to limitations on content. Apart from that, it's a bit like a virtual equivalent of someone's living room. You have the right to tell Mr. F. Swinger that his mother is a hamster and his father smells of elderberries, but Mr. F. Swinger is within his rights not to tolerate that and kick you out. I think I view fab as a bit different to social media though. Social media platforms are almost become general public forum rather than closed group. I agree with your analogy that Fab is someone's sitting room. But I would argue Facebook/Twitter are now speakers corner or that crazy bloke that always shouts at me outside Kings Cross Fab is a business which hosts user content. That user content can be controlled according to the terms that Fab sets (his house, his rules). I am not saying what Fab should or should not do, but just what they're within their rights to do. There are plenty of places to spout about the evils of vaccines if you want to. You don't have to be in Fab's living room to do so, if they don't want you to be." Agree with you completely on that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...or that crazy bloke that always shouts at me outside Kings Cross I was only saying hello... " I'll buy you a pint the next time by way of apology | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fab will need to decide what it is willing to host in its space or not. Fab will be bound by legal obligations in the UK and possibly other jurisdictions as to limitations on content. Apart from that, it's a bit like a virtual equivalent of someone's living room. You have the right to tell Mr. F. Swinger that his mother is a hamster and his father smells of elderberries, but Mr. F. Swinger is within his rights not to tolerate that and kick you out. I think I view fab as a bit different to social media though. Social media platforms are almost become general public forum rather than closed group. I agree with your analogy that Fab is someone's sitting room. But I would argue Facebook/Twitter are now speakers corner or that crazy bloke that always shouts at me outside Kings Cross I do think the rules are going to change for social media platforms. Their defence of just being the carrier doesn't work anymore. I think you're right in thats what will happen but I think they are perfectly right to argue they are just a carrier. People are perfectly within their rights to say the earth is flat and Bill Gates wants to inject a microchip in them. Just as much as I am within my rights to laugh my arse off at them "They're probably within their legal rights at the moment, although I know that carriers can carry responsibility for content in some circumstances (copyright breaches), and I suppose that could potentially set precedent for other responsibility. And the way in which the major social media platforms (and Google search results) funnel much of our online experience - what does that do to our ability to speak and be heard? Is it a bit like a sat nav that won't direct you to any restaurant other than McDonald's? (potentially a ridiculous example, but, like, you might be able to find Burger King but it's harder) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fab forums are a great filter for some people . However would you meet an anti vaxxer if they were hot and sent you a message ? " If I know they're an anti vaxxer they wouldn't be able to message me. If I don't know, I can't judge them on that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...or that crazy bloke that always shouts at me outside Kings Cross I was only saying hello...
I'll buy you a pint the next time by way of apology " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anything said against Boris Johnson or the Tory government must be removed immediately. Free speech is wrong and should be made a criminal offence." If that's what you've read in the discussion above, then I suggest you try again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fab will need to decide what it is willing to host in its space or not. Fab will be bound by legal obligations in the UK and possibly other jurisdictions as to limitations on content. Apart from that, it's a bit like a virtual equivalent of someone's living room. You have the right to tell Mr. F. Swinger that his mother is a hamster and his father smells of elderberries, but Mr. F. Swinger is within his rights not to tolerate that and kick you out. I think I view fab as a bit different to social media though. Social media platforms are almost become general public forum rather than closed group. I agree with your analogy that Fab is someone's sitting room. But I would argue Facebook/Twitter are now speakers corner or that crazy bloke that always shouts at me outside Kings Cross I do think the rules are going to change for social media platforms. Their defence of just being the carrier doesn't work anymore. I think you're right in thats what will happen but I think they are perfectly right to argue they are just a carrier. People are perfectly within their rights to say the earth is flat and Bill Gates wants to inject a microchip in them. Just as much as I am within my rights to laugh my arse off at them "The thing is we're at the stage now where disinformation is weaponised and does pose a danger to many in so many different respects. I hate censorship and I also hate there's such a willing gullible audience for disinformation now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fab will need to decide what it is willing to host in its space or not. Fab will be bound by legal obligations in the UK and possibly other jurisdictions as to limitations on content. Apart from that, it's a bit like a virtual equivalent of someone's living room. You have the right to tell Mr. F. Swinger that his mother is a hamster and his father smells of elderberries, but Mr. F. Swinger is within his rights not to tolerate that and kick you out. I think I view fab as a bit different to social media though. Social media platforms are almost become general public forum rather than closed group. I agree with your analogy that Fab is someone's sitting room. But I would argue Facebook/Twitter are now speakers corner or that crazy bloke that always shouts at me outside Kings Cross I do think the rules are going to change for social media platforms. Their defence of just being the carrier doesn't work anymore. I think you're right in thats what will happen but I think they are perfectly right to argue they are just a carrier. People are perfectly within their rights to say the earth is flat and Bill Gates wants to inject a microchip in them. Just as much as I am within my rights to laugh my arse off at them
The thing is we're at the stage now where disinformation is weaponised and does pose a danger to many in so many different respects. I hate censorship and I also hate there's such a willing gullible audience for disinformation now."It's definitely a fine line and holy crap the misinformation that's out there. I recognise the value of broad free speech protections. I also recognise the damage that fringe groups do to those who are susceptible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely yes, all free speech should be banned and anything that goes against the government. It's our dream to have the same system in place as communist china "Free speech comes with responsibility . If people make claims that are untrue and are misleading then they should be removed . If you don’t like it then I guess you can post your ‘theories ‘ elsewhere (although your options are limited ) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fab will need to decide what it is willing to host in its space or not. Fab will be bound by legal obligations in the UK and possibly other jurisdictions as to limitations on content. Apart from that, it's a bit like a virtual equivalent of someone's living room. You have the right to tell Mr. F. Swinger that his mother is a hamster and his father smells of elderberries, but Mr. F. Swinger is within his rights not to tolerate that and kick you out. I think I view fab as a bit different to social media though. Social media platforms are almost become general public forum rather than closed group. I agree with your analogy that Fab is someone's sitting room. But I would argue Facebook/Twitter are now speakers corner or that crazy bloke that always shouts at me outside Kings Cross I do think the rules are going to change for social media platforms. Their defence of just being the carrier doesn't work anymore. I think you're right in thats what will happen but I think they are perfectly right to argue they are just a carrier. People are perfectly within their rights to say the earth is flat and Bill Gates wants to inject a microchip in them. Just as much as I am within my rights to laugh my arse off at them
The thing is we're at the stage now where disinformation is weaponised and does pose a danger to many in so many different respects. I hate censorship and I also hate there's such a willing gullible audience for disinformation now."This. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the term anti-vaxxer defined as someone who actively promotes false information in order to deter others from having a vaccination, or someone who simply chooses not to have a vaccination? " The former, in my opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the term anti-vaxxer defined as someone who actively promotes false information in order to deter others from having a vaccination, or someone who simply chooses not to have a vaccination? " The distinction I've heard elsewhere is "anti vax" is spreads misinformation/ is unlikely to be persuaded, as opposed to "vaccine hesitancy". Not a distinction I've seen here though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the term anti-vaxxer defined as someone who actively promotes false information in order to deter others from having a vaccination, or someone who simply chooses not to have a vaccination? " I think it is the former. Nobody is forced to have a vaccine but if they promote their reasons (and these reasons are untrue or misleading ) then they should be removed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anything said against Boris Johnson or the Tory government must be removed immediately. Free speech is wrong and should be made a criminal offence." 
E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely yes, all free speech should be banned and anything that goes against the government. It's our dream to have the same system in place as communist china
Free speech comes with responsibility . If people make claims that are untrue and are misleading then they should be removed . If you don’t like it then I guess you can post your ‘theories ‘ elsewhere (although your options are limited ) "
E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Possibly the route that twitter has started taking with some of the Orange One's postings is the way things will go. Allowing the post, but putting a warning on it "this information is untrue"." I don't think that that will work here. I do know that some forums ban things like medical advice (on the grounds that that can go wrong fast), and anything on vaccination (supplements, cures) would fall under that. But again, that's up to Fab (subject to legal obligations). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fab will need to decide what it is willing to host in its space or not. Fab will be bound by legal obligations in the UK and possibly other jurisdictions as to limitations on content. Apart from that, it's a bit like a virtual equivalent of someone's living room. You have the right to tell Mr. F. Swinger that his mother is a hamster and his father smells of elderberries, but Mr. F. Swinger is within his rights not to tolerate that and kick you out. I think I view fab as a bit different to social media though. Social media platforms are almost become general public forum rather than closed group. I agree with your analogy that Fab is someone's sitting room. But I would argue Facebook/Twitter are now speakers corner or that crazy bloke that always shouts at me outside Kings Cross I do think the rules are going to change for social media platforms. Their defence of just being the carrier doesn't work anymore. I think you're right in thats what will happen but I think they are perfectly right to argue they are just a carrier. People are perfectly within their rights to say the earth is flat and Bill Gates wants to inject a microchip in them. Just as much as I am within my rights to laugh my arse off at them
The thing is we're at the stage now where disinformation is weaponised and does pose a danger to many in so many different respects. I hate censorship and I also hate there's such a willing gullible audience for disinformation now."This.. When you have people actively committing criminal acts due to what some bloke says on his ppv something has to be done.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely yes, all free speech should be banned and anything that goes against the government. It's our dream to have the same system in place as communist china " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely yes, all free speech should be banned and anything that goes against the government. It's our dream to have the same system in place as communist china
Free speech comes with responsibility . If people make claims that are untrue and are misleading then they should be removed . If you don’t like it then I guess you can post your ‘theories ‘ elsewhere (although your options are limited ) "Like the government have and do? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely yes, all free speech should be banned and anything that goes against the government. It's our dream to have the same system in place as communist china " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely yes, all free speech should be banned and anything that goes against the government. It's our dream to have the same system in place as communist china
Free speech comes with responsibility . If people make claims that are untrue and are misleading then they should be removed . If you don’t like it then I guess you can post your ‘theories ‘ elsewhere (although your options are limited )
Like the government have and do? "What do the government do? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely yes, all free speech should be banned and anything that goes against the government. It's our dream to have the same system in place as communist china
Free speech comes with responsibility . If people make claims that are untrue and are misleading then they should be removed . If you don’t like it then I guess you can post your ‘theories ‘ elsewhere (although your options are limited )
Like the government have and do? "Even the president of the United States isn't permitted to post lies on social media | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm really for letting people believe what they want to believe. They will ridicule what I believe. I will ridicule what they believe. 'Truth' if there is any at all, is 'post-dated, sometimes by many many dozens of years and the politics involved along the way. Facts, assumes you know what they are and let's face it most of the 'facts' we profess to know are little more than the 'opinions' we hold in the echo-chamber of our own socio-political groupings anyway constantly re-enforced by those echo's bouncing of the walls. Only Time and Experience give us the truth. We all make a choice to believe or not to believe. If I die because of my belief then that's the risk I take. I'll take the vaccine as will my husband, and so far most of my friends are saying that they will too. But if a friend of mine decided not to, then she/he would still be my friend. If all goes well then I would prod and cajole over time for them to do likewise. But let's face it - if you get your news from FaceBook, you are already in trouble anyways. "I think truth can be relative. But there's relative truths and there's more obvious nonsense. I'll expand on a comedian's example rather than getting into anything contentious. (Dara O'Briain) If NASA are launching a spaceship, there might be genuine debate as to the most effective strategies to achieve their aims. That's fine. The dude at the pub who thinks the sky is a carpet painted by God - yeah even if there are several different scientific debates about the mission, he's talking horse shit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the anti vaxxers can provide evidence that what they are saying is relevant or has been proven then fine, they should be able to plaster it over every social media outlet they can find. If they can't back up their drivel by peer reviewed science then they shouldn't be allowed to post." Does that work both ways. No one can post anything unless it’s peer reviewed. It would certainly reduce the number of threads. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the anti vaxxers can provide evidence that what they are saying is relevant or has been proven then fine, they should be able to plaster it over every social media outlet they can find. If they can't back up their drivel by peer reviewed science then they shouldn't be allowed to post. Does that work both ways. No one can post anything unless it’s peer reviewed. It would certainly reduce the number of threads." The irony at the moment is we ARE NOT allowed to post peer reviewed links, like to scientific journals, but we are allowed to post links to drivel like the Daily Fail and The S*n  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely yes, all free speech should be banned and anything that goes against the government. It's our dream to have the same system in place as communist china " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the Government may consider requiring Anti-Vaxxer and Conspiracy posts to be removed from social media, should Fab be doing the same?" Definitely not. Total fabricated bollocks posted by idiots should be fought with facts, common sense and total ridiculing, its the British way  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the Government may consider requiring Anti-Vaxxer and Conspiracy posts to be removed from social media, should Fab be doing the same?" no | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the term anti-vaxxer defined as someone who actively promotes false information in order to deter others from having a vaccination, or someone who simply chooses not to have a vaccination? " The last you said. I am not against it myself, but I dont just take any vaccine that have come out without proper testing, for example like this rush vaccine, it takes years of development and testing, not few months. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let the anti-vaxers believe the drivel. They'll re-think when the clubs reopen and you have to present proof of vaccination!" I hope this happens | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm really for letting people believe what they want to believe. They will ridicule what I believe. I will ridicule what they believe. 'Truth' if there is any at all, is 'post-dated, sometimes by many many dozens of years and the politics involved along the way. Facts, assumes you know what they are and let's face it most of the 'facts' we profess to know are little more than the 'opinions' we hold in the echo-chamber of our own socio-political groupings anyway constantly re-enforced by those echo's bouncing of the walls. Only Time and Experience give us the truth. We all make a choice to believe or not to believe. If I die because of my belief then that's the risk I take. I'll take the vaccine as will my husband, and so far most of my friends are saying that they will too. But if a friend of mine decided not to, then she/he would still be my friend. If all goes well then I would prod and cajole over time for them to do likewise. But let's face it - if you get your news from FaceBook, you are already in trouble anyways. "I don't think jury duty sounds like your sort of thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely yes, all free speech should be banned and anything that goes against the government. It's our dream to have the same system in place as communist china "I don't think you know what free speech means. You are free to say what you like, but you are not free from the consequences, especially if it is deemed offensive or dangerous. Freedom of speech does not mean publications need to air your opinions. It is their right to refuse to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely yes, all free speech should be banned and anything that goes against the government. It's our dream to have the same system in place as communist china
I don't think you know what free speech means.
You are free to say what you like, but you are not free from the consequences, especially if it is deemed offensive or dangerous.
Freedom of speech does not mean publications need to air your opinions. It is their right to refuse to. "Do it's dangerous And subversive not to want the vaccine.. ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely yes, all free speech should be banned and anything that goes against the government. It's our dream to have the same system in place as communist china
I don't think you know what free speech means.
You are free to say what you like, but you are not free from the consequences, especially if it is deemed offensive or dangerous.
Freedom of speech does not mean publications need to air your opinions. It is their right to refuse to.
Do it's dangerous And subversive not to want the vaccine.. ?"No, personally I don't have a problem if people don't want to take it 'if' they have valid reasons. However, many anti-vaxxers spread lies and misinformation about vaccines that can put people off and 'that' can be dangerous. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Stop forcing people to be forcibly injected...free choice" Who is being forably injected then? No one! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Stop forcing people to be forcibly injected...free choice" How about you stop spreading disinformation..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have seen quite recently how false I information can lead to big problems.. In 1998, report in the Lancet stated there was a link between The MMR vaccine and autism. In 2010, the original author retracted the claim following multiple investigations the proved the claims were bogus. How many people refused to let their kids have the MMR because of it? How much effort was required to prove it was utter rubbish? Last year, the NHS completed yet another review that reiterated there was no link between The two.. Even after it was debunked, the damage continues.. That was one publication that did that amount of damage and put trust in vaccination back decades. Today everone has a voice on social media and for every person that posts untruths, no matter how blatantly obvious they are rubbish, there are some who will believe it. " And who decides what is true.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Stop forcing people to be forcibly injected...free choice How about you stop spreading disinformation..?" Agreed .. including government propoganda | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not yet but they want to stop social media platforms for anti vaxers " Not quite. They want to stop the spread of disinformation and blatent lies from anti-vaxxer groups. People discussing actual facts, their concerns and sharing opinions will still be ok. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have seen quite recently how false I information can lead to big problems.. In 1998, report in the Lancet stated there was a link between The MMR vaccine and autism. In 2010, the original author retracted the claim following multiple investigations the proved the claims were bogus. How many people refused to let their kids have the MMR because of it? How much effort was required to prove it was utter rubbish? Last year, the NHS completed yet another review that reiterated there was no link between The two.. Even after it was debunked, the damage continues.. That was one publication that did that amount of damage and put trust in vaccination back decades. Today everone has a voice on social media and for every person that posts untruths, no matter how blatantly obvious they are rubbish, there are some who will believe it. And who decides what is true.. " Generally peer reviewed science as opposed to angry Steve who works in Wetherspoons. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not yet but they want to stop social media platforms for anti vaxers Not quite. They want to stop the spread of disinformation and blatent lies from anti-vaxxer groups. People discussing actual facts, their concerns and sharing opinions will still be ok." Why not just ban all thought and opposition.. ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have seen quite recently how false I information can lead to big problems.. In 1998, report in the Lancet stated there was a link between The MMR vaccine and autism. In 2010, the original author retracted the claim following multiple investigations the proved the claims were bogus. How many people refused to let their kids have the MMR because of it? How much effort was required to prove it was utter rubbish? Last year, the NHS completed yet another review that reiterated there was no link between The two.. Even after it was debunked, the damage continues.. That was one publication that did that amount of damage and put trust in vaccination back decades. Today everone has a voice on social media and for every person that posts untruths, no matter how blatantly obvious they are rubbish, there are some who will believe it. And who decides what is true.. Generally peer reviewed science as opposed to angry Steve who works in Wetherspoons. " Shall we pin down poor misguided Steve and inject him for his own good..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And who decides what is true.. Generally peer reviewed science as opposed to angry Steve who works in Wetherspoons. Shall we pin down poor misguided Steve and inject him for his own good..?" No, let's take time to explain it to him with science, evidence and proof, so that he can see how he was misguided and let him make his own mind up about taking the vaccine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have seen quite recently how false I information can lead to big problems.. In 1998, report in the Lancet stated there was a link between The MMR vaccine and autism. In 2010, the original author retracted the claim following multiple investigations the proved the claims were bogus. How many people refused to let their kids have the MMR because of it? How much effort was required to prove it was utter rubbish? Last year, the NHS completed yet another review that reiterated there was no link between The two.. Even after it was debunked, the damage continues.. That was one publication that did that amount of damage and put trust in vaccination back decades. Today everone has a voice on social media and for every person that posts untruths, no matter how blatantly obvious they are rubbish, there are some who will believe it. And who decides what is true.. " The people who are responsible for running the social media site. Just look at Donald Trump, his lies are now being highlighted by Twitter, if you don’t agree with how they run their own site then don’t use it. Simple really | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Shall we pin down poor misguided Steve and inject him for his own good..?" That's your words, nobody has said anything like that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And who decides what is true.. Generally peer reviewed science as opposed to angry Steve who works in Wetherspoons. Shall we pin down poor misguided Steve and inject him for his own good..? No, let's take time to explain it to him with science, evidence and proof, so that he can see how he was misguided and let him make his own mind up about taking the vaccine." But never let him persuade others | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And who decides what is true.. Generally peer reviewed science as opposed to angry Steve who works in Wetherspoons. Shall we pin down poor misguided Steve and inject him for his own good..? No, let's take time to explain it to him with science, evidence and proof, so that he can see how he was misguided and let him make his own mind up about taking the vaccine. But never let him persuade others " Yes, he can if he has facts, evidence and proof rather than just lies and debunked theories. Those will not be getting removed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And who decides what is true.. Generally peer reviewed science as opposed to angry Steve who works in Wetherspoons. Shall we pin down poor misguided Steve and inject him for his own good..? No, let's take time to explain it to him with science, evidence and proof, so that he can see how he was misguided and let him make his own mind up about taking the vaccine. But never let him persuade others Yes, he can if he has facts, evidence and proof rather than just lies and debunked theories. Those will not be getting removed. " One truth then.. why not issue everyone with a little red book | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And who decides what is true.. Generally peer reviewed science as opposed to angry Steve who works in Wetherspoons. Shall we pin down poor misguided Steve and inject him for his own good..? No, let's take time to explain it to him with science, evidence and proof, so that he can see how he was misguided and let him make his own mind up about taking the vaccine. But never let him persuade others Yes, he can if he has facts, evidence and proof rather than just lies and debunked theories. Those will not be getting removed. One truth then.. why not issue everyone with a little red book " Every social media has a ‘terms & conditions ‘ of use, read them , it might help | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And who decides what is true.. Generally peer reviewed science as opposed to angry Steve who works in Wetherspoons. Shall we pin down poor misguided Steve and inject him for his own good..? No, let's take time to explain it to him with science, evidence and proof, so that he can see how he was misguided and let him make his own mind up about taking the vaccine. But never let him persuade others Yes, he can if he has facts, evidence and proof rather than just lies and debunked theories. Those will not be getting removed. One truth then.. why not issue everyone with a little red book Every social media has a ‘terms & conditions ‘ of use, read them , it might help "Yep... Use those to silence the uncomfortable truth.. that always helps | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And who decides what is true.. Generally peer reviewed science as opposed to angry Steve who works in Wetherspoons. Shall we pin down poor misguided Steve and inject him for his own good..? No, let's take time to explain it to him with science, evidence and proof, so that he can see how he was misguided and let him make his own mind up about taking the vaccine. But never let him persuade others Yes, he can if he has facts, evidence and proof rather than just lies and debunked theories. Those will not be getting removed. One truth then.. why not issue everyone with a little red book " What are you on about? Really? If any anti-vaxxer had actually evidence to back up their claims I'd be fine with listening, but they don't. They have all been debunked, time and time again. It's about time they stop spouting crap and scaring so many people needlessly into making dangerous decisions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And who decides what is true.. Generally peer reviewed science as opposed to angry Steve who works in Wetherspoons. Shall we pin down poor misguided Steve and inject him for his own good..? No, let's take time to explain it to him with science, evidence and proof, so that he can see how he was misguided and let him make his own mind up about taking the vaccine. But never let him persuade others Yes, he can if he has facts, evidence and proof rather than just lies and debunked theories. Those will not be getting removed. One truth then.. why not issue everyone with a little red book Every social media has a ‘terms & conditions ‘ of use, read them , it might help
Yep... Use those to silence the uncomfortable truth.. that always helps "Calling something the ‘uncomfortable truth’ doesn’t make it true. You can have the opinion that vaccines are unsafe, but if you then decide to go on social media and state that vaccines are unsafe because off reasons that are obviously incorrect then expect them to be removed. Do you think Trump should be continually allowed to tell lies to his 82 million followers ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Exercise your right to take your vax but please don't try to influence others who wont" Base you reasons against vaccines on fact and not fiction and you won’t encounter any problems | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely yes, all free speech should be banned and anything that goes against the government. It's our dream to have the same system in place as communist china "
Viva el presidente! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Exercise your right to take your vax but please don't try to influence others who wont" But allow antivaxers to influence others to go down their deranged path? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the long-term solution to misinformation & fake news is for critical and systems thinking to be taught to a much greater extent in schools. Thus the private citizen would become better equipped to analyse information and reach a rational conclusion without the need for excessive government (or other) censorship. In the short-term, we should recognise the difference between an anti-vaxxer and someone who has genuine concerns about the accelerated vaccine development process." The recently educated people I know are more likely to follow the science. It is the older people I know who are sharing utter BS on Facebook, my mother being one of them. I would suggest catch up education of people in their middle aged years would be a good idea. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fyi facts dont care about your feelings. A vaccine is either safe in a statistical sense or it isnt. Not wanting a vaccine because it is unsafe when that is not true means you are just simply wrong Not wanting a vaccine because you think the gov is pressuring you and you are just a contrarian by nature is pathetic Not wanting a vaccine because you think there is a global conspiracy means you think the gov is capable of such a colossal conspiracy coordinated with every university and pharmaceutical company i the world..which simply cannot be true Basically...anyone spouting anti vax bs is an idiot" Or anyone not challenging it is an idiot ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the long-term solution to misinformation & fake news is for critical and systems thinking to be taught to a much greater extent in schools. Thus the private citizen would become better equipped to analyse information and reach a rational conclusion without the need for excessive government (or other) censorship. In the short-term, we should recognise the difference between an anti-vaxxer and someone who has genuine concerns about the accelerated vaccine development process. The recently educated people I know are more likely to follow the science. It is the older people I know who are sharing utter BS on Facebook, my mother being one of them. I would suggest catch up education of people in their middle aged years would be a good idea." Well the older generation probably need re-programming... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You want state censored communications.. ? Welcome to the new order comrade" Every form of mass media communication is ‘censored’ to some extant , are you suggesting it shouldn’t be ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You want state censored communications.. ? Welcome to the new order comrade Every form of mass media communication is ‘censored’ to some extant , are you suggesting it shouldn’t be ? " I don't believe in state censorship.. you do perhaps.. Apart from anti vax social media...what else would you censor? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fyi facts dont care about your feelings. A vaccine is either safe in a statistical sense or it isnt. Not wanting a vaccine because it is unsafe when that is not true means you are just simply wrong Not wanting a vaccine because you think the gov is pressuring you and you are just a contrarian by nature is pathetic Not wanting a vaccine because you think there is a global conspiracy means you think the gov is capable of such a colossal conspiracy coordinated with every university and pharmaceutical company i the world..which simply cannot be true Basically...anyone spouting anti vax bs is an idiot Or anyone not challenging it is an idiot ?" For what reason are people challenging a vaccine? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does all this only apply to digital media, or can we see The Sunday Sport et al being banned?" Surely anything against 'the cause' should be banned. It's for our own good | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Go down this path and eventually you have the powers that be banning sites like this "for the moral good of the country". Dont believe me? Look how the government has interfered with pornography in this country in the last few years...for our own good of course. They wont stop there. Pornography is the canary in the cage. The tech is now in place to spy on and control people. Once its in place, then the laws change. Slowly and surely." Why would the government want to ban this site? When did they start banning pornography online ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does all this only apply to digital media, or can we see The Sunday Sport et al being banned?" Why would they ban the Sunday Sport? It is obviously a comedy newspaper | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You want state censored communications.. ? Welcome to the new order comrade Every form of mass media communication is ‘censored’ to some extant , are you suggesting it shouldn’t be ? I don't believe in state censorship.. you do perhaps.. Apart from anti vax social media...what else would you censor?" Malicious communications can include fraudulent materials designed to mislead and damage individuals and society itself. Freedom of speech is paramount and freedom to debate and disagree is important- but false and misleading bs should be seen as fraudulent | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have seen quite recently how false I information can lead to big problems.. In 1998, report in the Lancet stated there was a link between The MMR vaccine and autism. In 2010, the original author retracted the claim following multiple investigations the proved the claims were bogus. How many people refused to let their kids have the MMR because of it? How much effort was required to prove it was utter rubbish? Last year, the NHS completed yet another review that reiterated there was no link between The two.. Even after it was debunked, the damage continues.. That was one publication that did that amount of damage and put trust in vaccination back decades. Today everone has a voice on social media and for every person that posts untruths, no matter how blatantly obvious they are rubbish, there are some who will believe it. And who decides what is true.. " Fucking facts decides | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You want state censored communications.. ? Welcome to the new order comrade Every form of mass media communication is ‘censored’ to some extant , are you suggesting it shouldn’t be ? I don't believe in state censorship.. you do perhaps.. Apart from anti vax social media...what else would you censor?" It is irrelevant if you believe in it or not , if you don’t like being censored when using social media then I suggest you don’t use it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Go down this path and eventually you have the powers that be banning sites like this "for the moral good of the country". Dont believe me? Look how the government has interfered with pornography in this country in the last few years...for our own good of course. They wont stop there. Pornography is the canary in the cage. The tech is now in place to spy on and control people. Once its in place, then the laws change. Slowly and surely. Why would the government want to ban this site? When did they start banning pornography online ? " Ask the site owners why they dint allow certain words to be used in conversations on here or why photos and videos of certain sexual activities are not allowed to be posted. It started a few years ago. God bless the Tory party for looking out for us. I dont know what might happen to me if i saw a picture of someone pissing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have seen quite recently how false I information can lead to big problems.. In 1998, report in the Lancet stated there was a link between The MMR vaccine and autism. In 2010, the original author retracted the claim following multiple investigations the proved the claims were bogus. How many people refused to let their kids have the MMR because of it? How much effort was required to prove it was utter rubbish? Last year, the NHS completed yet another review that reiterated there was no link between The two.. Even after it was debunked, the damage continues.. That was one publication that did that amount of damage and put trust in vaccination back decades. Today everone has a voice on social media and for every person that posts untruths, no matter how blatantly obvious they are rubbish, there are some who will believe it. And who decides what is true.. Fucking facts decides "Facts are the conspiracy theorists kryptonite, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Go down this path and eventually you have the powers that be banning sites like this "for the moral good of the country". Dont believe me? Look how the government has interfered with pornography in this country in the last few years...for our own good of course. They wont stop there. Pornography is the canary in the cage. The tech is now in place to spy on and control people. Once its in place, then the laws change. Slowly and surely. Why would the government want to ban this site? When did they start banning pornography online ? Ask the site owners why they dint allow certain words to be used in conversations on here or why photos and videos of certain sexual activities are not allowed to be posted. It started a few years ago. God bless the Tory party for looking out for us. I dont know what might happen to me if i saw a picture of someone pissing." I think your getting confused, they were trying to prevent underage people from accessing porn and unsuitable images, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have seen quite recently how false I information can lead to big problems.. In 1998, report in the Lancet stated there was a link between The MMR vaccine and autism. In 2010, the original author retracted the claim following multiple investigations the proved the claims were bogus. How many people refused to let their kids have the MMR because of it? How much effort was required to prove it was utter rubbish? Last year, the NHS completed yet another review that reiterated there was no link between The two.. Even after it was debunked, the damage continues.. That was one publication that did that amount of damage and put trust in vaccination back decades. Today everone has a voice on social media and for every person that posts untruths, no matter how blatantly obvious they are rubbish, there are some who will believe it. And who decides what is true.. Fucking facts decides "He didnt say what, he said who. There is a world of difference. Do you belive everything the government tells you? I certainly dont, they have been shown to be bare (blair) faced liars often enough. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Go down this path and eventually you have the powers that be banning sites like this "for the moral good of the country". Dont believe me? Look how the government has interfered with pornography in this country in the last few years...for our own good of course. They wont stop there. Pornography is the canary in the cage. The tech is now in place to spy on and control people. Once its in place, then the laws change. Slowly and surely. Why would the government want to ban this site? When did they start banning pornography online ? Ask the site owners why they dint allow certain words to be used in conversations on here or why photos and videos of certain sexual activities are not allowed to be posted. It started a few years ago. God bless the Tory party for looking out for us. I dont know what might happen to me if i saw a picture of someone pissing. I think your getting confused, they were trying to prevent underage people from accessing porn and unsuitable images, "No. They have banned many things in the last few years. Images and videos of watersports, facesitting, fisting and lots of BDSM activities despite them being consensual. They have banned these for ADULTS. It wasnt to protect minors. Read the reports when it happened. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Go down this path and eventually you have the powers that be banning sites like this "for the moral good of the country". Dont believe me? Look how the government has interfered with pornography in this country in the last few years...for our own good of course. They wont stop there. Pornography is the canary in the cage. The tech is now in place to spy on and control people. Once its in place, then the laws change. Slowly and surely. Why would the government want to ban this site? When did they start banning pornography online ? Ask the site owners why they dint allow certain words to be used in conversations on here or why photos and videos of certain sexual activities are not allowed to be posted. It started a few years ago. God bless the Tory party for looking out for us. I dont know what might happen to me if i saw a picture of someone pissing. I think your getting confused, they were trying to prevent underage people from accessing porn and unsuitable images,
No. They have banned many things in the last few years. Images and videos of watersports, facesitting, fisting and lots of BDSM activities despite them being consensual. They have banned these for ADULTS. It wasnt to protect minors. Read the reports when it happened."If you don’t like it then don’t use the site, I am sure there are other places you can find that type of content . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Go down this path and eventually you have the powers that be banning sites like this "for the moral good of the country". Dont believe me? Look how the government has interfered with pornography in this country in the last few years...for our own good of course. They wont stop there. Pornography is the canary in the cage. The tech is now in place to spy on and control people. Once its in place, then the laws change. Slowly and surely. Why would the government want to ban this site? When did they start banning pornography online ? Ask the site owners why they dint allow certain words to be used in conversations on here or why photos and videos of certain sexual activities are not allowed to be posted. It started a few years ago. God bless the Tory party for looking out for us. I dont know what might happen to me if i saw a picture of someone pissing. I think your getting confused, they were trying to prevent underage people from accessing porn and unsuitable images,
No. They have banned many things in the last few years. Images and videos of watersports, facesitting, fisting and lots of BDSM activities despite them being consensual. They have banned these for ADULTS. It wasnt to protect minors. Read the reports when it happened."They banned them because there are new laws around what the law calls "extreme" porn. Fab are following the law. I happen to like some of the things on that list but accept I can't include pics of them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not legally. Thats the point. Creeping legislation. For our own good. You dont find that worrying? Where is your personal line in the sand?" Are you suggesting that nothing should be censored? I know where my line in the sand is, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Go down this path and eventually you have the powers that be banning sites like this "for the moral good of the country". Dont believe me? Look how the government has interfered with pornography in this country in the last few years...for our own good of course. They wont stop there. Pornography is the canary in the cage. The tech is now in place to spy on and control people. Once its in place, then the laws change. Slowly and surely. Why would the government want to ban this site? When did they start banning pornography online ? Ask the site owners why they dint allow certain words to be used in conversations on here or why photos and videos of certain sexual activities are not allowed to be posted. It started a few years ago. God bless the Tory party for looking out for us. I dont know what might happen to me if i saw a picture of someone pissing. I think your getting confused, they were trying to prevent underage people from accessing porn and unsuitable images,
No. They have banned many things in the last few years. Images and videos of watersports, facesitting, fisting and lots of BDSM activities despite them being consensual. They have banned these for ADULTS. It wasnt to protect minors. Read the reports when it happened.
They banned them because there are new laws around what the law calls "extreme" porn. Fab are following the law. I happen to like some of the things on that list but accept I can't include pics of them."Thats my point. They change the laws bit by bit. Its only when you step back and look at the changes over a couple of decades that you see just how much they bring in big changes by tinkering here and there. We are a completely different society than we were 20 years ago. And i dont think it is for the better. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not legally. Thats the point. Creeping legislation. For our own good. You dont find that worrying? Where is your personal line in the sand? Are you suggesting that nothing should be censored? I know where my line in the sand is, "It was fine as it was. Why did those activities suddenly become so horrific? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Go down this path and eventually you have the powers that be banning sites like this "for the moral good of the country". Dont believe me? Look how the government has interfered with pornography in this country in the last few years...for our own good of course. They wont stop there. Pornography is the canary in the cage. The tech is now in place to spy on and control people. Once its in place, then the laws change. Slowly and surely. Why would the government want to ban this site? When did they start banning pornography online ? Ask the site owners why they dint allow certain words to be used in conversations on here or why photos and videos of certain sexual activities are not allowed to be posted. It started a few years ago. God bless the Tory party for looking out for us. I dont know what might happen to me if i saw a picture of someone pissing. I think your getting confused, they were trying to prevent underage people from accessing porn and unsuitable images,
No. They have banned many things in the last few years. Images and videos of watersports, facesitting, fisting and lots of BDSM activities despite them being consensual. They have banned these for ADULTS. It wasnt to protect minors. Read the reports when it happened.
They banned them because there are new laws around what the law calls "extreme" porn. Fab are following the law. I happen to like some of the things on that list but accept I can't include pics of them.
Thats my point. They change the laws bit by bit. Its only when you step back and look at the changes over a couple of decades that you see just how much they bring in big changes by tinkering here and there. We are a completely different society than we were 20 years ago. And i dont think it is for the better."We didn’t have the internet 20 years ago, Access to porn and extreme content is a millions times easier than it was. So I don’t get your point | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not legally. Thats the point. Creeping legislation. For our own good. You dont find that worrying? Where is your personal line in the sand? Are you suggesting that nothing should be censored? I know where my line in the sand is,
It was fine as it was. Why did those activities suddenly become so horrific? "What was ‘fine as it was’ . If you want water sports and BDSM then there are thousands of sites that cater for it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Go down this path and eventually you have the powers that be banning sites like this "for the moral good of the country". Dont believe me? Look how the government has interfered with pornography in this country in the last few years...for our own good of course. They wont stop there. Pornography is the canary in the cage. The tech is now in place to spy on and control people. Once its in place, then the laws change. Slowly and surely. Why would the government want to ban this site? When did they start banning pornography online ? Ask the site owners why they dint allow certain words to be used in conversations on here or why photos and videos of certain sexual activities are not allowed to be posted. It started a few years ago. God bless the Tory party for looking out for us. I dont know what might happen to me if i saw a picture of someone pissing. I think your getting confused, they were trying to prevent underage people from accessing porn and unsuitable images,
No. They have banned many things in the last few years. Images and videos of watersports, facesitting, fisting and lots of BDSM activities despite them being consensual. They have banned these for ADULTS. It wasnt to protect minors. Read the reports when it happened.
They banned them because there are new laws around what the law calls "extreme" porn. Fab are following the law. I happen to like some of the things on that list but accept I can't include pics of them.
Thats my point. They change the laws bit by bit. Its only when you step back and look at the changes over a couple of decades that you see just how much they bring in big changes by tinkering here and there. We are a completely different society than we were 20 years ago. And i dont think it is for the better.
We didn’t have the internet 20 years ago, Access to porn and extreme content is a millions times easier than it was. So I don’t get your point "Access is easier so thats the impetus to ban things? Before the internet we were happy for it to be made into magazines, VHS and DVDs.? Access is almost completely via the internet now. So now they ban things. We are never going to agree on what content should be allowed. Personally, i am happy with flat earthers, racists, 5g nobheads, antivaxxers and Trumps Tweets. Give them a platform. Let everyone see them for what they are. Id rather they were in the public eye doing what they are doing rather than in secret. You cant legislate against stupid people beliving stupid things. You shouldnt legislate against stupid people telling other stupid people about their stupid ideas. If you want to do that, who is the arbiter? They going to be very busy, and will they be fair? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fab will need to decide what it is willing to host in its space or not. Fab will be bound by legal obligations in the UK and possibly other jurisdictions as to limitations on content. Apart from that, it's a bit like a virtual equivalent of someone's living room. You have the right to tell Mr. F. Swinger that his mother is a hamster and his father smells of elderberries, but Mr. F. Swinger is within his rights not to tolerate that and kick you out. I think I view fab as a bit different to social media though. Social media platforms are almost become general public forum rather than closed group. I agree with your analogy that Fab is someone's sitting room. But I would argue Facebook/Twitter are now speakers corner or that crazy bloke that always shouts at me outside Kings Cross I do think the rules are going to change for social media platforms. Their defence of just being the carrier doesn't work anymore. I think you're right in thats what will happen but I think they are perfectly right to argue they are just a carrier. People are perfectly within their rights to say the earth is flat and Bill Gates wants to inject a microchip in them. Just as much as I am within my rights to laugh my arse off at them
The thing is we're at the stage now where disinformation is weaponised and does pose a danger to many in so many different respects. I hate censorship and I also hate there's such a willing gullible audience for disinformation now."Thats because people search out a truth they believe, as it fits thier ideals of not wearing a mask, not having the vaccine, not social distancing, etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You want state censored communications.. ? Welcome to the new order comrade" Tom, everyone is already subject to state control of their communication, to such an extent that you will generally find that people are subject to the laws of the land that define what is restricted. Breaching those laws has consequences. For centuries citizens have been limited in what they may communicate, this is not something new. As others have said too, private companies providing websites, will also limit each of us, to comply both with the law as well as their own terms and conditions. You seem for some reason to be exaggerating the ideas that people have for cultivating discussions based on sound, valid scientific evidence, without promotion of danger. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm really for letting people believe what they want to believe. They will ridicule what I believe. I will ridicule what they believe. 'Truth' if there is any at all, is 'post-dated, sometimes by many many dozens of years and the politics involved along the way. Facts, assumes you know what they are and let's face it most of the 'facts' we profess to know are little more than the 'opinions' we hold in the echo-chamber of our own socio-political groupings anyway constantly re-enforced by those echo's bouncing of the walls. Only Time and Experience give us the truth. We all make a choice to believe or not to believe. If I die because of my belief then that's the risk I take. I'll take the vaccine as will my husband, and so far most of my friends are saying that they will too. But if a friend of mine decided not to, then she/he would still be my friend. If all goes well then I would prod and cajole over time for them to do likewise. But let's face it - if you get your news from FaceBook, you are already in trouble anyways.
I don't think jury duty sounds like your sort of thing."It's precisely what I mean - 'facts' dressed as 'evidence' that are presented for 'you' to 'decide' upon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think people should be able to speak freely about almost anything on their mind without the posts being removed." But then your almost anything will differ from mine and his or her's so any one moderating such posts will have an impossible task.. It would be like saying I think I should be able to drive my extremely high powered car at whatever speed I like, wherever I like and in what ever state I just happen to be.. We all set rules and boundaries etc for our kids, we expect other people to act in a certain way when we meet them in social or other situations and we hopefully do the same and we abide by the laws of the land within which we live etc because the alternative would be chaos.. There are some who would start an argument in an empty room.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the Government may consider requiring Anti-Vaxxer and Conspiracy posts to be removed from social media, should Fab be doing the same?" Yes of course if they are factually incorrect and it's the law of the land. Dont forget swingers are all lovely empathetic kind hearted and open minded people so it shouldn't be a problem. I'm not a fan of censorship and I do think it's good sometimes to challenge statements. But once proven to be incorrect need to desist. Don't forget equally rights to freedom of expression come with responsibilities and for those spreading harmful fake facts... We need to stop it. There's plenty of crap in the world, we don't need more of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the Government may consider requiring Anti-Vaxxer and Conspiracy posts to be removed from social media, should Fab be doing the same?" I don't think so, at least unless it actually becomes required by law. They're obviously incorrect in what they say. But I respect their right to say it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its a slippy slope for a number of reasons. Firstly who's to decide whats abhorrent and whats not? Not that long ago what we're all doing on here would have been seen as massively socially unacceptable. Secondly blocking people from saying something or expressing an opinion rarely if ever gets them to change their opinion. If anything forcing the conversation underground is more likely to entrench the view. The MAN knew we were on to something and shut us down. I'm sure people will say that false information is dangerous. And they're right but do we want to live in a nanny state where we are told what to do and think? Where is personal responsibility? Give me dangerous freedom over peaceful servitude any day. D" It’s not a slippery slope at all. At long last bookface and twiter are having to flag up basic fact checking after pressure from various governments and the reputable press. Talk of arguments going underground is just nonsense, outside of a few loonies. The gullible just casually flit through their social media feeds picking up on any old rubbish about the pyramids being built by Volgons from planet Huxo. That’s the sort of misinformation that absolutely should be legislated against from appearing in the mainstream when presented as fact. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Observers should note the way that this thread has gone. "Organisations are free to limit content on their site as they see fit." "Communism!" "I agree with free speech subject to legal restrictions, although disinformation is a challenge" "No one must contradict the Tory Party!" ... It rather tells you who's thinking about this and who's just spouting lines." It's been muted by the Labour party actually.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No they shouldn’t be silenced but those who disagree with them need to get better at putting their argument over with countering evidence." You can't argue with idiots it's a well known fact they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No they shouldn’t be silenced but those who disagree with them need to get better at putting their argument over with countering evidence. You can't argue with idiots it's a well known fact they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience " And they don't argue honestly and shift the goal posts. See thimerosol and autism. After its all but entire removal from paediatric vaccines in the US in 2002, no reduction in autism has been seen. Why's this? Umm umm... It must be maternal epigenetic damage. It's still the vaccines. Thing is, it'll always be the vaccines because they don't care about the evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some posts/threads are already removed such as Bill Gates ones, especially when uncomfortable truths are talked about." There we go again. Calling something an ‘uncomfortable truth ‘ doesn’t make it true, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No they shouldn’t be silenced but those who disagree with them need to get better at putting their argument over with countering evidence. You can't argue with idiots it's a well known fact they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience And they don't argue honestly and shift the goal posts. See thimerosol and autism. After its all but entire removal from paediatric vaccines in the US in 2002, no reduction in autism has been seen. Why's this? Umm umm... It must be maternal epigenetic damage. It's still the vaccines. Thing is, it'll always be the vaccines because they don't care about the evidence." That technique is discussed on youtube in a video called The Alt-Right Playbook: Never Play Defense. The series is worth watching. You will see the same technique here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some posts/threads are already removed such as Bill Gates ones, especially when uncomfortable truths are talked about." Conspiracy theorists bs I think is the commonly accepted term.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No they shouldn’t be silenced but those who disagree with them need to get better at putting their argument over with countering evidence. You can't argue with idiots it's a well known fact they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience And they don't argue honestly and shift the goal posts. See thimerosol and autism. After its all but entire removal from paediatric vaccines in the US in 2002, no reduction in autism has been seen. Why's this? Umm umm... It must be maternal epigenetic damage. It's still the vaccines. Thing is, it'll always be the vaccines because they don't care about the evidence. That technique is discussed on youtube in a video called The Alt-Right Playbook: Never Play Defense. The series is worth watching. You will see the same technique here." Yes. Our arguments are good, our evidence is solid. Intellectual honesty is our problem, because the other side don't abide by the rules | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A survey in a local paper here polled 1800 people. 63% said they would take the vaccine and 37% said they would not. Should the paper be banned from reporting this ?" If it’s factual and wasn’t a result of a leading question, then no. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A survey in a local paper here polled 1800 people. 63% said they would take the vaccine and 37% said they would not. Should the paper be banned from reporting this ?" No, they aren't peddling a nutjob conspiracy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" A survey in a local paper here polled 1800 people. 63% said they would take the vaccine and 37% said they would not. Should the paper be banned from reporting this? " I think all media has a responsibilty to moderate their reports to accurately reflect the facts, and a responsibility not to emphasise opinions based on false assumptions and inaccurate information. Sadly this is often not the case. For instance, did the newspaper report state the reasons why 37% said they would not take the vaccine? Perhaps 80% of the 37% are waiting for confirmation that the vaccine is safe before they take it. If that was the case then around 92% would actually take the vaccine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A survey in a local paper here polled 1800 people. 63% said they would take the vaccine and 37% said they would not. Should the paper be banned from reporting this ?" No, that is factually based information. No need to ban fact, whether good or bad.. Just need to censor the bullshit that does harm and pollutes the minds of the those easily led.. There are many who should know better and need to wake up and get a good dose of reality. There are those, like my cousin, who are disabled and have learning difficulties, who do believe everything they read on the internet. Is it really fair to be causing unnecessary distress to someone because they are unable to differ between fact and fiction? A person who has paranoid schizophrenia with delusions of grandeur (for good measure) really does not need to be exposed to the rubbish that conspiracists spout; the untruths pedalled by the armchair warriors who have a sad existance, That's all they can do to fill their time. So take off your PlayStation headset and take a break from shooting up some war torn apocalyptic state with your online mates, go for a walk, the world outside is beautiful. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perfect spelling or grammar is not compulsory on the forum, please don't correct peoples spelling as it can put people off from posting" Here Here ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A survey in a local paper here polled 1800 people. 63% said they would take the vaccine and 37% said they would not. Should the paper be banned from reporting this ?" No, but if they go on to say anything about Bill Gates, mercury or any other fantasy then it should be banned | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A survey in a local paper here polled 1800 people. 63% said they would take the vaccine and 37% said they would not. Should the paper be banned from reporting this ? No, but if they go on to say anything about Bill Gates, mercury or any other fantasy then it should be banned" I'm more about responsibility in reporting. If a newspaper reports anti vax views, they should make it clear that these views are fringe and unsupported by evidence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ahh so you who believe in the vaccinations are happy us anti vaccination people shoukd have our freedom of speech removed is that what is being said here??? " Nope. Although it's fascinating that that's consistently the refrain. Fab can limit expression as they see fit as a private entity. If Fab did, you could speak elsewhere within the limits of free speech already at law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ahh so you who believe in the vaccinations are happy us anti vaccination people shoukd have our freedom of speech removed is that what is being said here??? " I believe your quite entitled to refuse tbe vaccine You're quite entitled to tell others your going to refuse it Your not entitled to cut and paste some shite from Sandras facebook page and try and encourage others to believe it and then argue with them when they disagree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ahh so you who believe in the vaccinations are happy us anti vaccination people shoukd have our freedom of speech removed is that what is being said here??? " The key word here is "believe". More people need to read the science, understand how vaccinations work and what steps are taken to bring a vaccine to the market. Knowledge removes the need for "belief". Then you can either understand how the vaccine works. And make a choice to take it or not". Or of course you're free to believe anything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ahh so you who believe in the vaccinations are happy us anti vaccination people shoukd have our freedom of speech removed is that what is being said here??? The key word here is "believe". More people need to read the science, understand how vaccinations work and what steps are taken to bring a vaccine to the market. Knowledge removes the need for "belief". Then you can either understand how the vaccine works. And make a choice to take it or not". Or of course you're free to believe anything." Are most people able to understand high level science? I know I'm not, I'm not appropriately trained and statistical analysis makes me want to shoot myself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the Government may consider requiring Anti-Vaxxer and Conspiracy posts to be removed from social media, should Fab be doing the same?" Yes end of conversation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sandras facebook who is Sandra??? For 13 years ive been researching the government and their quangos enough to know they don't have our best interest at heart. Ive taken on the government and their quangos not just for me but other people and ive won because i exposed their corruption. i dont believe any rights should be given up not a virus thats not even in the top ten of killers. Once you give them up you dont get them back, " What rights are you referring to? There’s no serious suggestion that it will be compulsory to take a vaccine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sandras facebook who is Sandra??? For 13 years ive been researching the government and their quangos enough to know they don't have our best interest at heart. Ive taken on the government and their quangos not just for me but other people and ive won because i exposed their corruption. i dont believe any rights should be given up not a virus thats not even in the top ten of killers. Once you give them up you dont get them back, " My right to spew conspiracy theories on other people's platforms is not one I hold dear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the Government may consider requiring Anti-Vaxxer and Conspiracy posts to be removed from social media, should Fab be doing the same?" Yes! Let's let's remove peoples opinions ! Jesus christ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely yes, all free speech should be banned and anything that goes against the government. It's our dream to have the same system in place as communist china "Or goes against the science. To me, libertarian is synonymous with deluded. Even the Daily Mail has finally rowed back on supporting anti-vaxxers. Probably don't want any more of their readers to unnecessarily snuff it I reckon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely yes, all free speech should be banned and anything that goes against the government. It's our dream to have the same system in place as communist china
Or goes against the science.
To me, libertarian is synonymous with deluded.
Even the Daily Mail has finally rowed back on supporting anti-vaxxers.
Probably don't want any more of their readers to unnecessarily snuff it I reckon. "The daily mail can get fucked as well,giving Marcus rashford a hard time after what he's achieved | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely yes, all free speech should be banned and anything that goes against the government. It's our dream to have the same system in place as communist china
Or goes against the science.
To me, libertarian is synonymous with deluded.
Even the Daily Mail has finally rowed back on supporting anti-vaxxers.
Probably don't want any more of their readers to unnecessarily snuff it I reckon.
The daily mail can get fucked as well,giving Marcus rashford a hard time after what he's achieved "They sure can. For so many reasons. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the Government may consider requiring Anti-Vaxxer and Conspiracy posts to be removed from social media, should Fab be doing the same?" Oh that's a great idea, why not add a swastika logo on the homepage of fabswingers while you're at it...! If you do not believe in freedom of speech you are nothing as a human. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely yes, all free speech should be banned and anything that goes against the government. It's our dream to have the same system in place as communist china
Or goes against the science.
To me, libertarian is synonymous with deluded.
Even the Daily Mail has finally rowed back on supporting anti-vaxxers.
Probably don't want any more of their readers to unnecessarily snuff it I reckon.
The daily mail can get fucked as well,giving Marcus rashford a hard time after what he's achieved "YO Dash !!! I'd ask if you were joking, but sadly, with that piece of shitbag alarmist 'populist' poison, I can't say I can. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the Government may consider requiring Anti-Vaxxer and Conspiracy posts to be removed from social media, should Fab be doing the same? Oh that's a great idea, why not add a swastika logo on the homepage of fabswingers while you're at it...! If you do not believe in freedom of speech you are nothing as a human." Now Cummings has gone I don't expect this issue to go any further | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely yes, all free speech should be banned and anything that goes against the government. It's our dream to have the same system in place as communist china
Or goes against the science.
To me, libertarian is synonymous with deluded.
Even the Daily Mail has finally rowed back on supporting anti-vaxxers.
Probably don't want any more of their readers to unnecessarily snuff it I reckon.
The daily mail can get fucked as well,giving Marcus rashford a hard time after what he's achieved
YO Dash !!!
I'd ask if you were joking, but sadly, with that piece of shitbag alarmist 'populist' poison, I can't say I can. "How ya doing me. Schloooooooooooooong, long time pal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the Government may consider requiring Anti-Vaxxer and Conspiracy posts to be removed from social media, should Fab be doing the same? Oh that's a great idea, why not add a swastika logo on the homepage of fabswingers while you're at it...! If you do not believe in freedom of speech you are nothing as a human." I suggest people look up what freedom of speech is. There are already a huge number of things that you cannot discuss on Fab, due both to the law and Fab policies above the law. Suggesting that limitations on speech in a certain context are Nazism is an overreaction and insulting to the memory of those who actually suffered under that regime. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely yes, all free speech should be banned and anything that goes against the government. It's our dream to have the same system in place as communist china
Or goes against the science.
To me, libertarian is synonymous with deluded.
Even the Daily Mail has finally rowed back on supporting anti-vaxxers.
Probably don't want any more of their readers to unnecessarily snuff it I reckon.
The daily mail can get fucked as well,giving Marcus rashford a hard time after what he's achieved
YO Dash !!!
I'd ask if you were joking, but sadly, with that piece of shitbag alarmist 'populist' poison, I can't say I can.
How ya doing me. Schloooooooooooooong, long time pal "Mr* | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the Government may consider requiring Anti-Vaxxer and Conspiracy posts to be removed from social media, should Fab be doing the same? Oh that's a great idea, why not add a swastika logo on the homepage of fabswingers while you're at it...! If you do not believe in freedom of speech you are nothing as a human." Except when it's false. Or even worse, knowingly false. Or worse still, kills people. Free speech isn't a right which should be abused. If it does that, you lose that right I reckon. Otherwise, yes,as you say, you can get, among other things, fascism. So in that sense I agree with you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ahh so you who believe in the vaccinations are happy us anti vaccination people shoukd have our freedom of speech removed is that what is being said here??? The key word here is "believe". More people need to read the science, understand how vaccinations work and what steps are taken to bring a vaccine to the market. Knowledge removes the need for "belief". Then you can either understand how the vaccine works. And make a choice to take it or not". Or of course you're free to believe anything. Are most people able to understand high level science? I know I'm not, I'm not appropriately trained and statistical analysis makes me want to shoot myself." You can read it at plenty of science based sites that give you the information in an understandable way, and then link to the core research if you want to know more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
