The intent of the first amendment is to give individuals the freedom to express their thoughts freely, without any legal repercussions. It's a universal human right, and its implementation into law is irrelevant to any philosophical discussion on morals.
That right has brought freedom and prosperity everywhere it's been implemented with minimal restrictions.
Twitter has become a public platform/forum/news outlet at this point. It's hard for anyone to argue with that, since people go there to get their news and to hear what prominent figures have to say.
Regardless of all that, shouldn't we be insisting that American companies retain core American values? The market can't select for those values since Twitter has no direct competitors, which makes the case for it being a platform even stronger.
You got it correct with "legal repercussions". Getting banned for TOS violations is hardly a legal repercussion, it's just someone exercising property rights. Nobody should have to pay for someone else's speech, good, bad or indifferent.
Lack of legal repercussions is also not lack of social repercussions.
Maybe we should be insisting on American companies retaining core American values, but that's not the legal environment they operate in, which is one of "fiduciary duty" only.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't we be looking at whether the people at the bottom gained more wealth, rather than what percentage of the gains they hold?
The wealthy will always have more opportunities bc of the 80/20 rule, and the fact that inequality is inherent in all animals. It is called "trickle down" after all, not "ration down."
I'm skeptical about the efficacy of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine over longer periods of time.
I've still not heard a reasonable explanation about why this vaccine is expected to work long-term when the flu shot clearly does not. Especially since SARS-CoV-2 mutates faster than the flu virus.
Can anyone give me an explanation of why vaccines are touted for fast-evolving viruses like the flu and SARS-CoV-2?
There cannot be a the vaccine; obviously, SARS-CoV-2 vaccines will have to be updated. People will need boosters.
> I've still not heard a reasonable explanation about why this vaccine is expected to work long-term when the flu shot clearly does not
I don't think anyone in their right mind claims or believes such a thing, or believes that the health authorities are trying to convince them of such a thing. Depending on what we mean by "long term".
>Especially since SARS-CoV-2 mutates faster than the flu virus.
This doesn't jive with what I have heard, that SARS-CoV-2 mutates rather slowly, like other coronaviruses.
And that the flu is completely different, having the ability to recombine parts, which is why we have a different strain every years, aka H1N1, H2N1, H2N2, etc. Every year they have to guess which one will be prevalent, therefore the yearly flu shots.
SARS-CoV-2 has not mutated into a different strain (variants are not strains), and is not expected to. Immune system response for other coronaviruses has been observed to be long lasting (17 years for SARS-CoV-1).
Your wrong. That's like saying a taxi cab driver who drove a criminal to a place where he committed a murder is partly responsible for the crime.
The virus is the thing that's causing harm. You can't blame an individual for being skeptical about a vaccine (that has more voluntarily reports of causing harm than any other vaccine in recent history, btw) that's experimental, and unapproved.
Also, the science is in on there being an effective treatment, therefore emergency use isn't even warranted. Seems cut and dry to me .
Hilarious comparison, because it's actually like holding a getaway driver responsible... which is exactly how the law does work.
The taxi cab driver would be relevant in February of 2020 when it was new and unknown. If you're going out in public today unvaccinated, you're knowingly complicit in spreading covid.
Wrong again, bc you're leaving out intent. People aren't taking the vaccine bc they don't want to inadvertantly put themselves in harm's way, not bc they want to infect other people.
Or maybe they're like me, and have already been infected with mild symptoms. Have you noticed that no one talks about natural immunity anymore, btw?
Again, anyone who has seen the VAERS data, and doesn't think twice about getting the vaccine, is just plain reckless.
Yet, if you look at the VAERS data, 2021 had more all-cause deaths after vaccinations than the previous 20 years combined. Also had more miscarriages after vaccination than the previous 20 years combined.
Keep in mind also we are only a little over half way through 2021.
Be sure to ignore the big disclaimer on that page, though, right?
> The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted or used to reach conclusions about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines.
My main paint, which I mention in many of my posts about this topic, but sometimes forget to include, is that there are peculiar signs in the data, and that these signs have to be acknowledged, followed up on and investigated, and some conclusions have to be drawn by people with the expertise to do so, and they have to be transparent about how those conclusions were drawn.
Instead everyone is sticking their head in the sand, except right wing pundits, who I think are all idiots and drawing their own incorrect conclusions because they aren’t experts.
That right has brought freedom and prosperity everywhere it's been implemented with minimal restrictions.
Twitter has become a public platform/forum/news outlet at this point. It's hard for anyone to argue with that, since people go there to get their news and to hear what prominent figures have to say.
Regardless of all that, shouldn't we be insisting that American companies retain core American values? The market can't select for those values since Twitter has no direct competitors, which makes the case for it being a platform even stronger.