Honestly, let people say whatever lies and nonsense they want and let relevant parties deal with them with libel laws if they want to, or liars destroy their own credibility if they want to.
And corporate advertisers aren't looking to have their brand associated with 4chan 2.0.
So if Musk believes in this unfettered free speech concept then it will destroy Twitter. Because what many people don't know is just how dominant Facebook and Google are in the advertising space. It's > 95% of total ad spend for many brands. So dumping Twitter because it's harming their brand will be a trivial decision.
It's his money to lose if advertisers all bail.
So when it comes to the choice between that and allowing unfettered free speech I am quite sure he is going to choose the former.
Advertisers are going to go where the money is. Will the changing demographics make the platform more money for advertisers, or less? That's all they care about.
Incidentally, if it means there's even a chance that we stop seeing even a small percentage of )(&@(#& Liberty Mutual ads, I'm all for whatever that takes.
It was bail bonds services, gold, male vitamins, pillows etc.
Not nearly as profitable as say Nike, GM, Sony, Apple etc.
They provided multiple scripts to Simmons Advertising for Rush Limbaugh to read and pass off as his personal dark horse take on climate policy.
Refer to pages 9 and 12 in the PDF linked below [2].
Would you say the coal industry wasn't a very profitable group? Do you think this is the only group who leveraged Limbaugh's voice to deliberately spread misinformation?
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Council_for_the_... [2] https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Cl...
That claim is false and I provided evidence to show it.
As for your whataboutism: that's patently untrue and you know it. Transmission rate and vaccination rate are very clearly inversely related no matter what dataset you're referencing.
But you're correct, misinformation knows no bounds, be it right wing radio or the comments section of a tech forum. The best we can do is vet sources sufficiently, or otherwise learn to disregard unfounded claims as random noise.
You may not recall, but 4chan was one of the greatest disseminators of information and a huge spawning ground for all kinds of content prior to the emergence of more mainstream platforms. It was also fucking disgusting.
(1) this is, by the way, something that Musk did to that diver he didn't like.
It also should be noted that Musk __won__ that libel case. So that's "acceptable speech" according to our laws and courts.
So no. Libel laws are _NOT_ the answer. Its too difficult to actually sue someone for libel today. You can apparently call someone a pedophile, advertised to dozens-of-millions of followers, and not be considered "libel" or "defamation".
If there's one thing I learned from that event, its that our libel laws / defamation laws are not strict enough. Its not worth going to the courts on this kind of thing because you'll lose.
"Paul Pelosi was attacked by a gay liberal" doesn't fall into libel laws.
> Liars destroy their own credibility
And Elon Musk owns Twitter. So that destroys the credibility of the platform, does it not?
-------
There's also organizations that explicitly peddle in misinformation. See "Russia Today" (or RT), who are trying to say that Ukrainians are gay Nazis, and were banned on Twitter because of it. There's no libel law that covers this case either (no one in particular is getting defamed). Its just war propaganda and is actively harmful misinformation.
Falling for 2016 trap. If it’s unverified info then it should be treated as such. Except majority of the people read it and consider it a true statement. Then it’s too late to debunk it.
> COVID19 can be cured by drinking bleach and/or Ivermectin and/or hydroxyquinoline.
These "cures" range from useless to harmful. But no one is getting defamed, so there's no one who will take the matter to court. What do you want, for COVID19 to take Joe Rogan to court over the Ivermectin statements?
I don't think people realize how useless libel laws are in today's social networks.
But, telling you that nothing works, go home and wait, is not factual. Many things are helpful, especially in combination.[0] This information should not be suppressed.
Dexamethasone studies, even in April 2020, showed a 50% reduction in death rates. This is why the death rate in the USA was so much lower than Italy, because doctors studied the crap out of COVID19 and we begun to find effective treatments.
Instead of spreading information about treatments, a large group decided it was best to spread misinformation about horse dewormers.
------------
In either case, I think I can safely say that the hoopla about IVM and all that was bullshit. It never worked, but people wanted to believe for... some reason? It got to the point where people were rejecting legitimate treatments (ie: Dexamethasone + Monoclonal Antibodies) and asking doctors for IVM. I know, my sister is a doctor and had to deal with this bullshit.
The link I referenced includes monoclonal antibody studies, and also paxlovid studies. It happens that I'm fully vaxx'd, got COVID, took paxlovid, and recovered (slowly). You might take a look at the link.
I'm not interested in "large groups", I'm interested in scientific evidence.
You may know that IVM is a Nobel prize winning drug that has been administered in billions of doses world wide for decades. It's on the WHO Essential list and is safer than aspirin.
The FDA staffers really enjoyed their "horse de-wormer" propaganda campaign. Yes, some people were using veterinary grade IVM, because they were denied the pharmaceutical grade prescription.
It's disingenuous, like saying don't drink water, because it's a chemical used in sewage treatment plants.
Here in NH, the legislature passed a bill to allow OTC dispensing of IVM. The Governor vetoed it (rightly, I think). His comment, when he signed the veto, included the remark that the measure was unnecessary, because any doctor can legally prescribe IVM for COVID. Except, most are actually not allowed to do that by their administrators.
As an experiment, my wife asked the local Walgreen pharmacist what he would do, if she gave him an IVM prescription for COVID. "We can't get any," he lied.
If you're still on the IVM hype-train, you've been left behind in this discussion. It is known not to work on COVID19. Its efficacy in treating parasites may be well known, but COVID19 isn't a parasite, its a virus.
As Mark Twain has stated: "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled". But hopefully it gives you some perspective on the matter. You have been fooled, and you will remain fooled as long as you're holding onto IVM illogically.
"It is known not to work". Says who, exactly? [0][1]
IVM actually does have a multi-modal effect on SARS-2 [2]
[0] https://c19ivm.org/adoption.html
But sure, pretend these other treatments don't exist. There's plenty of off-patent research that has grossly dropped the death rate of COVID19.
IVM has none, except for the weird supporters online who want to spread misinformation.
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tables/iverme...