Academic Media Censorship Conference Censored by YouTube
thewashingtonstandard.com
thewashingtonstandard.com
Why are people still under any illusion that they know what should be censored?
More transmissible strains means higher threshold for herd immunity, so yeah Fauci is right in this case to increase it given the spread of the UK, SA and Brazil strains.
> but even if I'm wrong, it means he was lying before and has confessed now.
Terrible logic.
He said he hesitated to state a number as high as 90% weeks ago because many Americans still seemed skeptical about vaccine.
“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci, who took his first dose of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine Tuesday, told The Times. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85. -- https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/dec/24/anthony-fau...
Further, this statement was made at approximately the same time that the UK variant was being discovered. There wasn't time for new R(t) numbers to be estimated. He was admitting to misleading us before the UK variant.
> Go straight to the science.
Yeah. So the model for herd immunity is well known: HI=(1-(1/R)). And we also have a good estimate of R(0) from CDC, about 2.5. That yields 60%. Following the science directly tells us that Fauci was actually telling the truth before, and it's today that he's lying.
Things change as they learn more. That's how this works. Saying they "lie" to you is stupid. They're telling you what they know, as they learn it.
They are STILL learning new things and will be for years, which will change how we address and deal with this.
For them to lie would mean they magically know everything about it and specifically choose not to tell you.
In the case of both of Fauci's lies, he DID know the correct answer, but chose to mislead the public.
His statements about masks were later justified by a claimed need to reserve PPE for medical personnel. And from my explanation in cousin comment[1], knowing the science shows us that he was actually telling the truth initially about herd immunity, and has recently changed his story to something not supported by the science.
Now, there's surely an argument to be made for managing the information to prevent panic, and to guide people into doing the right thing. But I don't think that's valid in a system that's supposed to be founded on democracy, self governance, a government "of the people, by the people". If we're going to let supposed experts run things with no input from the people, then we have some kind of technocratic oligarchy, and not a democracy.
Edit: Looks like this is a better source, though I haven't read it yet. https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-ce...
When your disagreement with someone drives you to contact their employer and demand their dismissal, you've gone far beyond a right to disagree.
Sounds like they're exercising their right to free speech and you want to censor them. Looks like a case of "I only agree with free speech when its my side".
I also really couldn't find a trace of this conference online, barring maybe a tiny FB page and an automatically generated hand/pen video with _13_ views?
Also, this is on a semi-propaganda-if-not-outright-propaganda site that's been posted here.
No social media movement on it that I can see, even on the supposed facebook page for it.
It's almost as if it doesn't exist.
And the article goes on for as long as it does talking about the conference being censored as it does the fact that we're living in 1984 (and a gratuitous attempt at connecting the WSB subreddit).
Please, folks. This stuff is easily debunked and really dangerous to just share around. Why are we upvoting things like this? I thought we were better than this as a community.
The link could be changed to more known mint press. https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-ce...
> This stuff is easily debunked
Please be careful with this. While the website lacks reputation it seems it did happen as described in this case.
In agreement with im3w1l, simply attacking the website is pure argument ad hominem.
Depends on your epistemology whether or not it's ad hominem. If you "believe" the content based because of the source's authority, then it is relevant to the content and is not ad hominem.
But in this case, we hardly need to pass judgment on the source.
- ads for guns and ammo
- claims that LGBTQ movement is destroying women's rights
- An ad for Fox News
- more claims about not trusting the media, CNN specifically
Books and covers, etc. I don't really trust them to accurately describe the events that happened. (I don't know if that's ironic. Did 2020 claim irony as a victim?)
I don't tend to pattern match on speech/content patterns of groups I disagree with.
You have half the country distrust anything with ads for guns, and the other half distrust anything that uses words like "woke" or "white supremacy."
Just as we restrict advertising to kids so ought we restrict advertising to the elderly.
There are claims of letting people know about products, or "driving consumer demand," but they fall apart as you dig deeper.
It's not clear how it ought to be regulated, but it ought to be regulated. It ought have been regulated a long, long time go, actually. When banner ads popped up on the Internet in the nineties was a much easier time than 2020, when we have trillion-dollar businesses pushing back.
Advertising is generally dishonest and predatory. It also tends to be AB tested and targeted enough that it doesn't feel dishonest to the readership of any particular venue. I just went to:
* Huff Post, and the first ad was: "Groundbreaking Device Exposes Greedy Internet Providers While Speeding Up Your Slow Internet"
* NYTimes, and the second ad was a sketchy "Bitcoin is the future/Invest Now"
* Wa Post: "Internet Providers Don't Want You Buying One, but They're Not Illegal"
Most venues don't have much control over the ads they serve. It's usually done through ad networks. I think Wa Post and NYTimes are top-notch journalism, while Huff Post is a sensationalist rag.
At least I can see that this website isn't feeding me personalized ads...
Some examples a brief look at Washington Standard turned up.
The don't like green energy [1], which would suggest that they are a conservative site:
> If you understand the entire “green energy” deal, you understand it is based solely on a lie from the father of lies, the devil. It’s being pushed by open Communists and why? It’s to enslave people. It’s to make lots of money. It’s to control the world. And where is the largest push of “green energy” products coming from? China. The fake president, China Joe Biden, is now pushing a fake revolution in which “green energy” will be pushed to suck the remainder of wealth of the West
Not fans of Bill Gates, either [2].
> Bill Gates is at it again, asking for more totalitarian intervention to stop a future pathogen. He wants to “prepare” for a plandemic in as serious of a manner as “we take the threat of war.”
> Preparing for these plandemics is easy for the rulers because they’ve been “predicting” or setting up their authoritarian responses to these scamdemics beforehand.
> Are we honestly to believe that a eugenicist who helped develop a fast-tracked vaccine that’s killing and damaging more people than the COVID-19 scamdemic could ever hope to is doing anything for the food of anyone but himself?
(The "fast-tracked vaccine that's killing and damaging more people than the COVID-19" is the Moderna vaccine).
But they don't seem all that happy with Trump, either [3].
> President Trump’s words were stirring on Thursday as he announced that he would soon be signing an Executive Order to establish a national commission to promote patriotic education in opposition to the 1619 Project. The only problem with the president’s soon to be released executive order is that there is zero authority for Congress or the president to engage in education at all.
At least Trump doesn't get swastikas drawn on his forehead like they do for Biden [4].
They seem generally more right than left, but the real unifying thread in most of their work seems to be that they have a very strict interpretation of the Constitution (but based on a poor understanding of the Constitution), and they seem to believe a lot of conspiracy theories.
I'm having a hard time seeing how CNN is "equally as biased the other way". CNN, like most other mainstream sites is biased in a way that is fairly easy to learn and correct for, allowing in most cases to get a reasonable idea of the truth by reading/watching them and one or two that are biased the other way.
It looks like it would take extraordinary effort to get much useful out of Washington Standard.
[1] https://thewashingtonstandard.com/china-joes-faux-revolution...
[2] https://thewashingtonstandard.com/bill-gates-vaxx-sales-pitc...
[3] https://thewashingtonstandard.com/trump-announces-executive-...
[4] https://thewashingtonstandard.com/biden-harris-ready-to-push...
- Democrats mobilize US military to suppress domestic opinion
- The LGBTQ MOVEMENT is destroying WOMENS RIGHTS
- CNN SLAMMED For Lying About WallStreetBets GameStop Rebellion, The SLV Short Squeeze Is FAKE NEWS
- Enter a contest to win a firearm
- Clothing for LIBERTY LOVERS (I really enjoyed this one)
- Save $15 on ammunition
- Various "health secrets"
Regardless of any reality that may legitimately be present inside this content, this website appears to be a typical clickbait machine that runs on political hate.