I was curious and clicked around. The site recommends using DDG as a search engine. There was a time that this wasn’t a fringe idea.
Either the story is true and fairly represented, or it’s false or misleading. If it’s the latter, it’s best to point it out.
Is that considered fringe now? Has it been appropriated by some radicalized group in the US?
Now supporting Facebook, Twitter and Youtube, behemoths which represent the excess of capitalism is considered hip, cool and progressive.
Isn't that great though? If it's now hip and cool, even the dumb/vain people will do the right thing (albeit for the wrong reasons) which should ultimately strengthen the alternatives to Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
it appears to have a large number of articles on it about how terrible "vaccine passports" are and how they're an outragious infringement on civil rights, so it's verging into outright coronavirus conspiracy stuff that contradicts factual science and reality.
as "alternative" social networks, linked from an index page off its home page, it also recommends well known far-right/alt-right/fascist hangouts gab, parler and mewe.
Then I was told that the vent made the N95 ineffective. Obviously wrong, I was certainly protected, and as a source control compared to folks wearing thin mesh or surgical masks (usually with nose out) no doubt far more reliable. Scientists wrong again.
Then I was told we couldn't go to to three mile beach with my children (deserted at 9AM when we went even during non-covid times). This had an ocean breeze onshore, huge quantities of fresh air (and sun). Supposedly it was safer to crowd into a grocery store with others. Count me skeptical again.
Then we are told that only the CDC can test for COVID. Count me skeptical.
Then we are told that antibody tests need to have full computer connected to an iphone and pay for a medical consult to use at home. Seriously? This great threat, and you can't do a test like a pregnancy strip at home? Thankfully they are backing off this now - scientists wrong again.
We are told that inflation is transitory, it's just misinformation that it might stick around a bit.
After the administration goes out of its way to block fossil fuel production in the US, they announce an investigation of oil companies for failing to keep prices low. Again, these are the "experts" in markets at the FTC.
If these scientists demanding vaccine passports spent even a FRACTION of the trillions put into this COVID (now Omicron) stuff between lockdowns and interventions into something as simple as healthy diet, exercise and socialization - what would be the outcomes?
I'm vaxed and boosted, but the blind obedience to these "scientists" and "experts" is totally ridiculous, especially the non-hard science epidemiologists - is absolutely silly.
I would not count this as their shining moment. Half the time the politicians ordering us off the beaches are squeezed in rooms with their staff and lobbyists hatching another political effort of one sort or another.
The words "misinformation" have become a near joke.
You were protected, but the people around you weren't.
The vent is a one-way valve. It blocks air from coming in, so it has to filter through the mask material. It allows air to go out freely with no filtering.
So a vented N95 mask protects the wearer from external particles, but it does not protect others from particles exhaled by the wearer.
Vented N95 masks are meant for places like construction sites that may have dust and toxic particles in the air. They protect you when you breathe in, but let you breathe out freely.
They are not suited for preventing the spread of disease.
It's a legitimate debate which has nothing to do with "conspiracies" - you don't need any conspiracies to find reasonable argument on both sides of the debate. If you don't like the side that that particular site is on and disagree with their arguments - fine, but that doesn't mean they are lying about other factual things (they are not). There's a huge distance between disagreeing and refusing to even listen to other side's arguments, and even worse - refusing to listen to anything from somebody that once had an opinion you disagree with - this is no way for a society to function.
The mere truth of a _statement_ is often not even 50% of the _message_ since every statement is framed and the frame is highly manipulable.
The truth of a statement is somewhat subjective but it's not helpful to be pedantic.
I understand that authoritative media sources often frame stories in abhorrent ways and I have tuned out the media in general as a result. However, if I hear a plausible, factual statement from even a source I abhor, I can filter through the framing to find the truth in the statement. In today's world, I think it's an essential skill.
Did Facebook accidentally ban an innocuous message? Seems plausible. Is Facebook known to engage in arbitrary flagging of content? Yes. Does this speak to the problematic nature of algorithmic fact-checking and moderation, a general theme of our era? Yes. Then it's worth discussing and it doesn't matter what source brought it to our attention.
If you have something to say, then, why don't you just say it yourself, instead of referencing someone else saying it?
3rd party, perhaps even recognized or respected, corroboration.
The other source somehow is more authoritative and meaningful than the same message directly from yourself. This idea matters and should be considered because X says it.
But if that source says both sensible and insensible things, espouses both virtuous and venal ideals, then the source has no value as source of authority or credeance.
Rig up a speak&spell to randomly spit out statements. Once in a while, it will say something truthful.
Now, so what? Why would you ever cite that speak&spell, no matter what it said, ever, on anything?
And that's just a random neutral source, not an opinionated one that says actively and intentionally harmful things some % of the time.
Even if the speak&spell says something you agree with and want to repeat, you still go try to find some other source who says the same thing, and unlike the speak&spell, has given anyone any reason to respect.
At the very very least, you acknowledge the weak argument and say "I know it's X saying this but..."
You can find a link from his main website[0] to his instagram[1] and twitter[2] posts mentioning the issue, but given the context they're perhaps bad choices
[0]: https://www.markstrahl.com/new-page/ [1]: https://www.instagram.com/markstrahlmp/ [2]: https://twitter.com/markstrahl
That said, I don't think there are many non-partisan sources left. The shift from paid physical issues limited by the physical page count to limitless online space with free access killed it. Each source now tries to generate as much low-quality clickbait as possible, and predictably picks topics that would resonate well with their audience's confirmation bias, turning a blind eye on anything outside the picture.
This applies to both sides of the political spectrum. "Left" sources won't publish anything criticizing censorship, "right" sources won't say anything against Trump. If you want an objective picture, you need to piece it yourself from both sides.