ADVERTISEMENT

Coronavirus

I don't agree with censoring people either. It sets a dangerous precedent.

Although it seems like a lot of people are fine with it, if they disagree with the people being censored.
I’m conflicted. I don’t like censorship but I support a business making decisions for themselves. Like who they bake cakes for.
This is a tough one. I'm not for censoring (unless it's something that's actually dangerous, like bomb building) but I'm absolutely for private business being able to do want they want in almost every circumstance. I'm assuming that Google did a cost benefit analysis on this and it worked out as a positive for them. That's really all that matters to them and the shareholders.
yes it kills me how certain people scream for capitalism over socialism at the top of their lungs yet when they get slapped in the face with it they act shocked and offended. Nothing says capitalism more than for a business to set their own policies and standards. In turn we as consumers decide whether or not to do business with them.
 
It's hard to draw an exact line, but most of the time it's pretty obvious. My example would be a pretty good one. The business would be the one to make that decision. If the customer doesn't like it, they can voice their opinion by not being a customer anymore.
Yeah, I wasn't trying to disagree...I just think it's a tough one. I agree that private businesses can and should be able to do what they want and also agree there is a line.

I just think that line moves quite a bit in the opinion of each individual and business.
 
I'm absolutely for private business being able to do want they want in almost every circumstance.
As am I. Unfortunately their ability to do what they want has already been neutered if it is deemed to be negative towards certain select groups, as Heelman referenced:
I don’t like censorship but I support a business making decisions for themselves. Like who they bake cakes for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heelmanwilm
As am I. Unfortunately their ability to do what they want has already been neutered if it is deemed to be negative towards certain select groups, as Heelman referenced:
I'm not sure I would say it's been neutered. Business usually goes where society goes, because that almost always maximizes their profit. If 50 years from now, the majority of their customers are against gay marriage, businesses will definitely switch their stance on the subject.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heelmanwilm
I'm not sure I would say it's been neutered. Business usually goes where society goes, because that almost always maximizes their profit. If 50 years from now, the majority of their customers are against gay marriage, businesses will definitely switch their stance on the subject.
You mean no more of these ads?

racism_of_19th_century_advertisements_5-456x700.jpg
 
Another consideration is that some of these platforms are so large that they arguably begin to function like a public utility. Nobody would want telecom companies censoring what you can/can’t send in a text message or say on a phone call.

On the other hand, you could also argue that the power social media companies have with regards to public opinion comes with some degree of responsibility for what gets posted and shared on their platforms.
 
Another consideration is that some of these platforms are so large that they arguably begin to function like a public utility. Nobody would want telecom companies censoring what you can/can’t send in a text message or say on a phone call.

On the other hand, you could also argue that the power social media companies have with regards to public opinion comes with some degree of responsibility for what gets posted and shared on their platforms.
The easy solution to that would be for the government to enforce the antitrust laws.
 
Another consideration is that some of these platforms are so large that they arguably begin to function like a public utility. Nobody would want telecom companies censoring what you can/can’t send in a text message or say on a phone call.

On the other hand, you could also argue that the power social media companies have with regards to public opinion comes with some degree of responsibility for what gets posted and shared on their platforms.
Yes a public utility, except they are private, and profit motivated, so its more like a private sector monopoly.

I know there should be caution in using the word monopoly, because there isn't really a monopoly on how people can get their news. If Google, Twitter, and FB owned and controlled all media sources, that would be a monopoly. They don't.

But these companies do have what amounts to a monopoly or oligopoly on social media. And I think on-line / social media is the main way 40 years old and under (and especially 30 years old and under) get their news. None of those people are reading newspapers or watching cable or broadcast TV or listening to radio.

I'd say even most people under 60 now get a lot of their news from social media / online.

The barriers to entry to go against Google, FB, Twitter are insurmountable. I just feel either these huge companies to somehow be broken up, or to disallow them to filter content (what / who they do / don't allow to post currently is very questionable).
 
Seems to me when it became lawful to go after internet sites if they don’t monitor for illegal activity (such as Craigslist with their personal ads) it opened this Pandora’s box and enabled the sites to basically use that as justification to censor.
 
Is someone shoving a vaccine down your throat?
Let’s see, you can now lose your job if not vaccinated, in California they’re mandating that kindergartners are vaccinated, some companies are saying if you’re a spouse and on your partners insurance you get fined $100 per pay period if they aren’t vaccinated, and a proposal on the table for the “infrastructure” bill is that businesses are fined $700k if you employ an unvaccinated worker. So yeah, I’d say that’s being shoved down your throat, but call me old fashioned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gunslingerdick
Let’s see, you can now lose your job if not vaccinated, in California they’re mandating that kindergartners are vaccinated, some companies are saying if you’re a spouse and on your partners insurance you get fined $100 per pay period if they aren’t vaccinated, and a proposal on the table for the “infrastructure” bill is that businesses are fined $700k if you employ an unvaccinated worker. So yeah, I’d say that’s being shoved down your throat, but call me old fashioned.
Ew you live in California?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: tarheel0910
Let’s see, you can now lose your job if not vaccinated, in California they’re mandating that kindergartners are vaccinated, some companies are saying if you’re a spouse and on your partners insurance you get fined $100 per pay period if they aren’t vaccinated, and a proposal on the table for the “infrastructure” bill is that businesses are fined $700k if you employ an unvaccinated worker. So yeah, I’d say that’s being shoved down your throat, but call me old fashioned.
Once again businesses making their own decisions. Don’t agree with what they’re deciding but they have the right to do it. Dont like it don’t work for them
And don’t consume
Their products. Capitalism is what’s getting crammed down your throat.
 
Once again businesses making their own decisions. Don’t agree with what they’re deciding but they have the right to do it. Dont like it don’t work for them
And don’t consume
Their products. Capitalism is what’s getting crammed down your throat.
Is it really their decision though? They are being told to make their employees get it or be fined thousands of dollars per employee. That's not much of a choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heelicious
Sometimes the government has to do something for the greater good of the country. This is one of those times.
 
His trust. Not over all. He is rank and file with all they say
I don't know the "amount" of his trust of doctors. I don't think you can really measure that, or for trust in the government, for that matter.

It's funny to me how so many people are so derisive of the health care professionals regarding Covid-19. I guess it's one of the pitfalls of social media. You get people who band together in defiance of some presumed threat to their freedoms and everything they've ever known goes out the window in order to placate their solidarity and presumed loss of freedom. "It may kill me, but at least I'll know I refused their advice and their attempts to try and save my life!"

If someone has diabetes, or cancer, or whatever, should they trust the doctors, with their knowledge of treatments? They've never cured those diseases, so why trust their opinions and recommendations? Go online and find a better cure, maybe?

ETA: As far as trusting the government, they've certainly earned derision and contempt and distrust. And, if they managed to politicize the treatments for diabetes and cancer, etc., more people would gladly die slowly and painfully to back their political preferences.
 
Why would you get advice from a doctor that you didn’t trust? Sounds like you need to find another doctor. Government Is trusted or not, on an issue by issue basis.
All doctors are prone to bad advise. Most doctors get paid to push certain medications. You harp on trusting doctors more than anyone. People are able to educate themselves.
Also, unless you live in a podunk town, doctors are severely overtaxed. Seeing a primary doctor is hard on good days.
 
Sometimes the government has to do something for the greater good of the country. This is one of those times.
Yep, postponing vax just prolongs the pandemic. No good reason not to get the vaccine unless you're afraid of needles.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT