Member Poll: RF COVID-19 Policy Revisited

[Koldo]

This is a private forum. Freedom of speech is about being free from state restrictions on speech.

And the rules here limit what we can say in all sorts of ways. For instance, the rules stop me from fully expressing what I think of you as a pastor who kept in-person services going all through the pandemic.

Exactly. This is why I support keeping the Covid policy as it is. People want free speech, but many only up to page 2, because they don't want to face the consequences of it, such as being belittled and mocked for willingly saying and doing stupid things.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It was, and still is, an effort to control the narrative rather than seeking truth. Please remove restrictions and let freedom of speech be a Constitutional right.

You're absolutely right. The policy was put in place to put a halt misinformation that can be a part of one's "freedom of speech" in order to prevent unnecessary illness and death to those that viewed the forum at the height of the pandemic.

That said, if you want to exercise your "Constitutional right," get a soap box and go stand an a street corner or publish your own book, because this is a privately owned forum, and your ability to participate here not a right; it's a privilege.

 

[Altfish]

Remove the current policy entirely/allow all statements about COVID but evidence (links) must be provided​

 

[Kenny]

This is a private forum. Freedom of speech is about being free from state restrictions on speech.

And the rules here limit what we can say in all sorts of ways. For instance, the rules stop me from fully expressing what I think of you as a pastor who kept in-person services going all through the pandemic.

Apples and oranges. Next you’ll try to liken it to crying out “fire” in a theatre.

 

[Kenny]

You're absolutely right. The policy was put in place to put a halt misinformation that can be a part of one's "freedom of speech" in order to prevent unnecessary illness and death to those that viewed the forum at the height of the pandemic.

That said, if you want to exercise your "Constitutional right," get a soap box and go stand an a street corner or publish your own book, because this is a privately owned forum, and your ability to participate here not a right; it's a privilege.

Except the “misinformation” was from reputable doctors who the powers that be wanted to silence. Apparently you don’t like science challenging science.

No different than the responses here. Try to silence an opposing viewpoint through pressure… no go on my side.

 

[Kenny]

Remove the current policy entirely/allow all statements about COVID but evidence (links) must be provided​

I like that.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Except the “misinformation” was from reputable doctors who the powers that be wanted to silence. Apparently you don’t like science challenging science.

I'm sorry you're under the impression that is a debate thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

It took me quite awhile to get used to the new RF layout...

It was different once?

I tried to find my list of RF Warnings, but could not find the link nor the warnings....

I believe that I never had any warnings, bannings, demerits, or other sanctions.
Since none are visible, none ever happened. I imagined them all.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Exactly. This is why I support keeping the Covid policy as it is. People want free speech, but many only up to page 2, because they don't want to face the consequences of it, such as being belittled and mocked for willingly saying and doing stupid things.

The problem is you got equally qualified people with valid degrees just as much as
others who have a different professional opinion on matters that get disregarded as being radicals or spouting the classic trope called 'misinformation' nowadays.

 

[Koldo]

The problem is you got equally qualified people with valid degrees just as much as
others who have a different professional opinion on matters that get disregarded as being radicals or spouting the classic trope called 'misinformation' nowadays.

It is important to distinguish between two very different situations:

1) When there is dissent, and the minority view is supported by a sizeable group that makes strong arguments. The minority view tends to viewed with a certain degree of respect on this case.
2) When there is dissent, and the minority view is supported by very few individuals that make weak arguments. The minority view on this case tends to be viewed as cringe-worthy on this case.

It is also worth of note that even though two individuals might be similarly qualified they might not be equally so.

 

[Heyo]

Except the “misinformation” was from reputable doctors who the powers that be wanted to silence. Apparently you don’t like science challenging science.

No different than the responses here. Try to silence an opposing viewpoint through pressure… no go on my side.

You have the privilege to post valid criticism even under the Covid policy. There are a few formalities that are easily met. I'm also for discontinuing the policy, because it has become redundant. But that it is silencing is not an argument.

 

[Kenny]

You have the privilege to post valid criticism even under the Covid policy. There are a few formalities that are easily met. I'm also for discontinuing the policy, because it has become redundant. But that it is silencing is not an argument.

No… what was happening was that people become judges as to what was valid criticism. You had one group of doctors decreeing to another group of doctors that their position were not valid and then taking them off of any and all platforms. Censorship.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No… what was happening was that people become judges as to what was valid criticism. You had one group of doctors decreeing to another group of doctors that their position were not valid and then taking them off of any and all platforms. Censorship.

This is a misrepresentation of what was going on.

 

[Kenny]

This is a misrepresentation of what was going on.

Really? So if a doctor said “if you had COVID, you don’t need a vaccine”… it wasn’t suppressed?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Really? So if a doctor said “if you had COVID, you don’t need a vaccine”… it wasn’t suppressed?

It's a misrepresentation to act as if an incompetent, uninformed doctor represents a reasonable, serious objection to the body of medical knowledge.

I get that you need to grasp at whatever straws you can to excuse your actions in the pandemic, but all you're doing is creating the impression that you're a liar AND a murderer instead of just a murderer.

 

[Revoltingest]

No… what was happening was that people become judges as to what was valid criticism. You had one group of doctors decreeing to another group of doctors that their position were not valid and then taking them off of any and all platforms. Censorship.

Censorship is appropriate at times because of potential harm caused.
You favor it, eg, children shouldn't watch snuff or hard core porn movies.
So you're not anti-censorship....you just want some things censored,
& other things not, eg, bogus alternative "health care".
Doctors without expertise in a field (eg, immunology, virology) state
dangerous misinformation. Platforms have a right to censor that info
in the interest of public health.
Do you agree with RFK Jr that vaccines are dangerous & without benefit?

 

[metis]

It was, and still is, an effort to control the narrative rather than seeking truth. Please remove restrictions and let freedom of speech be a Constitutional right.

That's all fine & dandy, but what if my "freedom of speech" kills multitudes of innocent people? Drug manufactures can be taken to court for putting out false information about their product.

The last estimate I saw was that some of the researchers believe that such misinformation of covid may have led to the death of roughly 200,000 Americans. Is that OK with you?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Remove the current policy entirely/allow all statements about COVID but evidence (links) must be provided​

You got my vote

 

[stvdv]

2024nov19:
How do you think the RF staff should approach COVID-related posts?
Keep the current policy in place, as outlined in this OP.
Votes: 7 21.9%
Modify the current policy (please clarify how in this thread).
Votes: 5 15.6%
Remove the current policy entirely/allow all statements about COVID, including ones without links.
Votes: 20 62.5%
Total voters 32 This poll will close: Nov 22, 2024 at 6:26 PM.

About Covid related posts:
My opinion: I voted for number #3. You are free to post your view (opinion) about Covid, no need to censor or safeguard it

To prevent RF to get sued. All health YouTubes start with "This is my opinion, check always with your doctor". It seems that this is required

Global RF banner by RF software maybe

Then there is the challenge to filter out true information amidst all misunderstanding and the fake-, mis-, mal-information and lies

I have accepted the harsh reality:
"Internet is full of lies, I can only trust/change myself"

 

[stvdv]

Exactly. This is why I support keeping the Covid policy as it is. People want free speech, but many only up to page 2, because they don't want to face the consequences of it, such as

being belittled

Belittling others = playing the man, not the ball
Only a weak man belittles others
Good thing to remember
Before belittling