Facebook censors Mexican Cardinal

[Quiddity]

MEXICO CITY (AP) — Facebook has placed a warning screen over a rambling chat by retired Mexican Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iñiguez in which he claims coronavirus vaccines contain a satanic microchip.

The Facebook screen warns viewers, “This post repeats information about COVID-19 that independent fact checkers say is false.”

Facebook puts warning on virus video by retired cardinal

You can watch the video of the Cardinal here:

Censura Facebook a Cardenal Juan Sandoval - Arquimedios

First off, I watched the video, and nowhere did it say the word "satanic". Nowhere does he say that COVID isn't real or that it's not tragic. His comments are about where this can lead to and who is in control of it all.

Whilst this can lead to some not wanting to take the vaccine or comply in some ways, the censorship is insane.

 

[Quiddity]

So he does not say, "the chip that they are planning to put in the vaccine to control you, it is the mark of the beast."?

I work with a number of people from Mexico, and who have family in Mexico. Per their reports, COVID is currently ravaging their country, and culturally folks are not taking it seriously (even by US standards).

Just like here on RF, I'm glad FB has at least some basic standards that prohibit this kind of garbage.

"His comments are about where this can lead to and who is in control of it all."

This is basic for you?

 

[Left Coast]

***THREAD MOVED TO NORTH AMERICAN POLITICS***

 

[Left Coast]

"His comments are about where this can lead to and who is in control of it all."

This is basic for you?

Extremely. Claiming that the COVID vaccine has a microchip in it to track people is one of the most egregious (and silly) misinformation campaigns out there about COVID.

Although the Orthodox rabbi who claimed the vaccine will make people gay is sure trying hard to out-crazy everyone.

 

[Quiddity]

Extremely. Claiming that the COVID vaccine has a microchip in it to track people is one of the most egregious (and silly) misinformation campaigns out there about COVID.

Although the Orthodox rabbi who claimed the vaccine will make people gay is sure trying hard to out-crazy everyone.

That wasn't the claim. At best, it can be interpreted that way but the context was about the New World Order and what could happen as I alluded to above.

 

[Left Coast]

That wasn't the claim. At best, it can be interpreted that way but the context was about the New World Order and what could happen as I alluded to above.

So, again, he did not say, "the chip that they are planning to put in the vaccine to control you, it is the mark of the beast."?

There is no "New World Order." Claiming that there is a plan to microchip the vaccine is false. There's simply no evidence for that. It's misinformation. Extremely, extremely basic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

First off, I watched the video, and nowhere did it say the word "satanic". Nowhere does he say that COVID isn't real or that it's not tragic. His comments are about where this can lead to and who is in control of it all.

Whilst this can lead to some not wanting to take the vaccine or comply in some ways, the censorship is insane.

So they didn't take the video down; they just put a warning on it?

How is that censorship, exactly?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Facebook is a privately owned site, and its owners are fully entitled to censor misinformation and objectively false claims that could lead to risks to public health and even death for vulnerable people.

The cardinal can take his unscientific, irresponsible rhetoric elsewhere if he hates Facebook's rules so much.

 

[Quiddity]

So, again, he did not say, "the chip that they are planning to put in the vaccine to control you, it is the mark of the beast."?

There is no "New World Order." Claiming that there is a plan to microchip the vaccine is false. There's simply no evidence for that. It's misinformation. Extremely, extremely basic.

I already answered this above in quotes. If you listen to his entire video you can see the context, it's not difficult to see it.

And there is a difference between someone saying “the current COVID vaccine has a microchip in it” and “if we are not diligent the new world order regime can use the existing situation to someday plant a microchip in a future pandemic”.

So much for basic.

 

[Quiddity]

So they didn't take the video down; they just put a warning on it?

How is that censorship, exactly?

If FB puts that tag on it, you can't see the video anymore.

 

[Quiddity]

Facebook is a privately owned site, and its owners are fully entitled to censor misinformation and objectively false claims that could lead to risks to public health and even death for vulnerable people.

The cardinal can take his unscientific, irresponsible rhetoric elsewhere if he hates Facebook's rules so much.

Spoken like a true American corporatist.

I don't think many people have the stomach to where this can lead.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Spoken like a true American corporatist.

I don't think many people have the stomach to where this can lead.

I'm neither American nor corporatist; I simply recognize private entities' right to police their websites however they see fit.

Doomsday prophecies may be emotionally appealing to some people, but they aren't of much value when they aren't backed up by any logic or evidence. Society isn't going to collapse just because one conspiracy theorist's video was hidden on Facebook.

 

[Quiddity]

I'm neither American nor corporatist; I simply recognize private entities' right to police their websites however they see fit.

I know. My statement can still apply.

Doomsday prophecies may be emotionally appealing to some people, but they aren't of much value when they aren't backed up by any logic or evidence. Society isn't going to collapse just because one conspiracy theorist's video was hidden on Facebook.

I have no interest in it beyond the censorship.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I have no interest in it beyond the censorship.

The censorship can't be evaluated in this case without also looking into what led to it in the first place. Yelling "censorship!" in isolation of everything else is quite superficial and hasty.

 

[Quiddity]

The censorship can't be evaluated in this case without also looking into what led to it in the first place. Yelling "censorship!" in isolation of everything else is quite superficial and hasty.

AP isn't even recognized as being to the right to warrant it "yelling" and it is rather pointless you insist for further context when......"right to police their websites however they see fit." That's sort of the point, you don't even need a good reason.

You're grasping at this point. The majority of the video is about the new world order.

 

[Debater Slayer]

AP isn't even recognized as being to the right to warrant it "yelling" and it is rather pointless you insist for further context when......"right to police their websites however they see fit." That's sort of the point, you don't even need a good reason.

You're grasping at this point. The majority of the video is about the new world order.

I don't think their reason needs to be convincing to everyone, yes, but then their reason in this case is pretty good to top it off: they censored the video because it contained objectively false statements about vaccines when enough people have already died due to the carelessness of many who refuse to act according to the scientific evidence and instead buy into conspiracy theories (e.g., that the vaccines are part of a "New World Order").

This was a good move by Facebook. Make no mistake: they're far from a decent corporation or a conscientious entity, but at least they got things right in this specific instance.

 

[HonestJoe]

If FB puts that tag on it, you can't see the video anymore.

That isn't true. I found the video and could view it (though I don't speak the language). You even said you watched it yourself in the OP. Right or wrong, this isn't censorship, they're only adding additional information.

 

[Quiddity]

I don't think their reason needs to be convincing to everyone, yes, but then their reason in this case is pretty good to top it off: they censored the video because it contained objectively false statements about vaccines when enough people have already died due to the carelessness of many who refuse to act according to the scientific evidence and instead buy into conspiracy theories (e.g., that the vaccines are part of a "New World Order").

This was a good move by Facebook. Make no mistake: they're far from a decent corporation or a conscientious entity, but at least they got things right in this specific instance.

".....censored the video because it contained objectively false statements about vaccines...."

Are you sure about that?

So you would support FB if say censored you for criticizing Trump for example?

Just want to make sure you are aware of what you are supporting here.

 

[Quiddity]

That isn't true. I found the video and could view it (though I don't speak the language). You even said you watched it yourself in the OP. Right or wrong, this isn't censorship, they're only adding additional information.

On FB you saw it? Or via another site?

 

[Debater Slayer]

".....censored the video because it contained objectively false statements about vaccines...."

Are you sure about that?

So you would support FB if say censored you for criticizing Trump for example?

Just want to make sure you are aware of what you are supporting here.

Criticizing Trump is different from posting something demonstrably false about a pandemic. I wouldn't support censoring someone for merely supporting Trump on Facebook because that's a far less rigorous subject than a medical one where the science is both established and readily accessible online.

That and criticizing Trump doesn't endanger anyone's safety, unlike misinformation about an ongoing pandemic.

The two are different situations; I think your comparison pits apples against oranges.