he does it for the money tho. Why do the few contrarians we have here do it?

Some people just wanna watch the world burn because they don't think it'll impact them, and they like to see people stressed over things they don't see as mattering.

I love how lying though is something that they’ll be ok with… other things they’ll evangelize that they’re holier than thou but lying? That’s ok.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think Rogan radicalizes people as much as confirms their biases. Carlson et al.. absolutely radicalize people.

Cancelled my Spotify Premium yesterday. I have other venues to listen to podcast for free and other places to stream music.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

I know I keep seeing this nonsense floating around on social media. Every time someone says "get a vaccine" with the dual purpose of preventing hospitalizations (and, thus, better for our medical system as a whole) and to lower tranmissibility, the argument always gets phase shifted thusly. They ignore the first part and run straight at "Omicron is just as transmissible and breakthroughs are just as likely as being unvaccinated" because some of the very early guidance said that might be possible. And then leads to the natural immunity, "there's no point in getting vaccinated", etc. I know I've read studies that disprove that - yes, omicron is more likely to breakthrough than previous strains, but still better than being unvaccinated and also you're not nearly as transmissible as high level transmissibility duration is much sorter. But I can't find those studies this morning. Anyone have a handy link?

SI

I cancelled mine too. I didn't really use it much anyway.

Sounds like Amazon Prime member gets a small music package and you can upgrade for less than Spotify for their full library. Apple and Google have a music service too. I'll probably do a little digging and find one that is cheaper.

I've been using the paid version of Pocket Casts for podcast now for a long time.

Prime music is fantastic. It is VERY rare they don't have an artist I am looking for. Super user friendly and works great with other apps, devices, etc...

Are you using the free Prime one or the Unlimited? Unlimited is only $8/month which seems pretty fair.

lol just saw they have Neil Young and Joni Mitchell on the homepage.

I linked to a couple of those studies a few pages back. Your assessment is correct, I think. "Natural immunity" is real, but getting the shot boosts that.

I also think it's better to answer questions and engage with people rather than assume they're idiots or have ulterior motives.

There are real questions as to whether young people, especially teenage boys, are better off getting vaccinated. Open discussion would be of some value there.

Here's my thinking:

I am overweight (BMI of 28), that's one risk factor, and I am approaching a second risk factor - and by far the biggest - age. I do not want COVID.

Even though the overall numbers are low, the studies suggest I have a much, much greater chance avoiding hospitalization if I'm vaccinated. The percentage of severe side-effects are much lower than that risk.

Therefore, I got the vaccine and the third booster. I assume there will be an annual shot at some point.

There are many breakthrough cases. Omicron is everywhere. Even if everyone gets vaccinated and that obviously helps decrease the spread, it is so contagious and 100% vaccination is simply not going to happen that it is unrealistic to assume I cannot be exposed to COVID. Even Measles made a comeback of sorts when vaccination rates dropped, and that was considered pretty much eradicated in the US for a long time. And Measles doesn't mutate the way COVID does.

Therefore, it's in my best interest, for my own protection, to assume that avoiding COVID exposure is impossible. Especially since the next major mutation may make the vaccines less effective - and there will be more mutations. Since I have no interest in locking myself in a room permanently, the vaccine is the best solution I have. As is not getting angry when others refuse the vaccine. Life is too short.

I think (and it's just an opinion) that at this point, more people will get vaccinated if it's spelled out logically as a self-preservation thing to do. If people continue to claim it should be done out of altruism, then those who don't want the vaccine will point to the side-effects (which certain groups with a very low risk of harm from COVID should probably do anyway).

I also think the more one tries to censor opinions, even incorrect ones, the more people will be exposed to them and uninterested in listening to the sources that endorse that censorship. What we want is popular people with a bad idea (like Rogan) to sit down with medical experts, ask questions, see the numbers and studies for themselves. That way, if they lock into conspiracy as an answer, they're the ones who look bad.

I don't see any censorship taking place. There's plenty of platform people can go to to espouse their beliefs.

Rogan did sit down with a respected neurosurgeon. He brought all the data. Rogan just didn't want to acknowledge it. Not sure what bringing more people on like that would do. He got a $100 million contract because he plays the contrarian and espouses conspiracy theories. There's way too much financial incentive for him to keep his stance.

I don't understand this at all. What would be the reason for teenage boys of remaining unvaxxed?

Thought this was pretty good. Especially the last paragraph. Joe Rogan isn't going to walk his daughter down the aisle. Were those 15 minutes worth abandoning your wife and children? Sadly, for many, it appears so.

Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine against Covid-19 in Israel | NEJM

To be clear, the question I'd be asking if I were making health decisions for a teenage boy might not be about the first shot - it might be about second shots and boosters. I'd read more.

It also seems that in many countries with higher overall vaccination rates, teenagers are not eligible for boosters unless they have comorbidities.

I can't debate Rogan... I've never listened to his podcast. I don't know how open he is to discussion. Searching today, all I can find easily is that he had an "expert" on last month who said some things that have been debunked. Then something about Gupta on CNN.

As for censorship - yes, that's real, even if it isn't complete. Substack's response to the current controversy, I thought, has been a good one.

I am the father of a teenage boy and it was a very easy decision. Risk of myocarditis is much higher with Covid along with all the other dangers of infection.

Rogan's definitely open to debate, he often has multiple people on with differing views. The people he invites definitely skew to the pro-conspiracy side - on a variety of issues - and a certain number of experts take the IMO counterproductive stance that they won't go on a show like Rogan's, but there are people out there not interested in any view but their own. On balance, Rogan isn't in that camp.


Agreed. Some issues it seems to me he's straddling the line between being friendly enough to the wingers to make them think he's arguably one of theirs, while also doing the respectable 'I'm just asking questions' bit.


Sometimes people, intelligent well-educated people, just plain believe different things than other intelligent well-educated people. There's often not an ulterior motive. There's a lot that gets said around here that I think is flat-out nuts, but I don't think it's because people are doing a performance art wind-up act. I think, by and large, it's because they view the world differently.



All of which leads me to this. I agree with SI's first paragraph, except of course that people who are ignorant are by definition not willfully engaging in bad faith.

First point: the second paragraph puts a lot of the blame in the wrong place IMO. Influencers get nowhere without people who follow them and are influenced.

Second point: The other side of the equals sign also needs to be considered. Repressing - the point that censorship isn't really happening has been well and accurately made - points of view doesn't solve the issue. It just pushes it underground. People are still going to think these things. Criticizing wrong views is absolutely essential and should happen. Going after people for expressing them, having personal animus towards them, is something else entirely. Having contrary views aired regularly is a benefit to a healthy society. Repressing them is the opposite. It creates division, while not really getting rid of the rot. There's definitely some affect on minimizing it, but there's a very large cost paid for that.

We could remove Rogan, Carlson et al tomorrow, or even make them never have existed in the first place in terms of their role in society, and this kind of thing would still happen. Free flow of information is the world we live in, and that genie isn't going back in the box. I don't think it should either, but even if the argument is made that we should try it's practically impossible in the internet age and beyond. We need to get better at combating misinformation via education - and the other part of it, the moral aspect of people caring what's true, is just as important. De-platforming, scrutiny isn't the answer. This is not least because who is to be the scrutinizer? We've already seen people de-platformed for saying things later demonstrated to be actually pretty darn right-on. Oops. What happens when the scrutinizers come for you - whoever 'you' are, whatever issue is important to you. We don't have censorship in which the government decides what opinons are allowed, but we're moving toward a situation where only popular opinions are. But popular opinions are not necessarily true ones, in fact they quite often aren't.

Same here. Yes, there's a statistically very small risk of myocarditis with the vaccine, but there's also a higher risk of myocarditis if the teenage boy gets COVID. Plus potential permanent lung damage. Plus all the various "long COVID" symptoms.

To me this is the seatbelt argument all over again. Yeah, you might get in a crash and the seatbelt might cause some broken ribs, but that's better than the broken ribs you get going through the windshield, because those come with head trauma, other broken limbs, and possibly death.

Who has been censored?

Yeah, I'm not sure what's censorship. Aren't I allowed to decide where I want my work published?

Since the government carved out an exception to libel and copyright laws with section 230, popular platforms gained enormous revenue from advertising placed on that content.

Some platforms have become far more popular than television networks or newspapers. That would not have been possible without this government protection.

They are so popular that it's difficult to convey speech to the public without using one of the major platforms. Not impossible, but difficult.

Section 230 also protects content providers from getting sued for deplatforming decisions.

I'd argue that the extraordinary protection means that any deplatforming decision is a form of government censorship. Not quite the same thing, but close enough.

I don't want to get into the who, because that will lead to some sort debate about whatever the who said. That's not the point. But who decides what's fact and what isn't fact? Feels an awful lot like Orwell's ministries lately.

Just with Twitter-like platforms there's Gab and Gettr and whatever Trump's platform will be called. There are options for people that want to leave a platform.

No it's not. It has never been easier to voice your beliefs. Millions of sites you can post to and countless free options to start a blog or online journal where you can post whatever you want.


A private company deciding to de-platform someone has absolutely nothing to do with Section 230. It's about private property. No different than your decision to kick someone out of your house you don't like or a bar kicking out an unruly customer. This has been constitutionally protected hundreds of years before Section 230 was even enacted.

In fact, Section 230 is the only reason many of these people have platforms in the first place. If Twitter could be sued for the actions of their users, their moderation policy would be much stricter.

Wordpress is free too. I could list a dozen or so other free tools where you don't have to learn HTML. Can be up and running in probably 20 minutes.

The objection to 230 isn't about private property.

It's about a particular business being so protected that it became a utility of sorts. And just like phone companies and electric companies cannot deplatform you because you don't share their political worldview, I think that should be extended.

But if Twitter wants to continue to deplatform people for the content of their speech, then it is a publisher, not a platform, and your arguments would hold, but then it would be liable for what it publishes.

No it's not. Websites and apps are not utilities in any way.

And why is it any of your business what a private business chooses to host and doesn't host? It's their business and they have free speech protections which you seem to want to infringe on.


Publisher and platform do not appear once in the text of Section 230. They are completely irrelevant to the discussion. You should read it and not gain your understanding of it from right-wing sites that also haven't read the text of Section 230 and use the irrelevant publisher/platform argument.

Phone companies can and do remove people and businesses from their service all the time because of the content of their calls.

Oh, the concepts are clear from reading the actual text. A platform is an interactive computer service. Publisher is clearly mentioned.

It seems disingenuous to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of favoring right-wing sites. It's a common and feckless straw-man argument. It's designed to avoid actual discussion.

I thought there might be people here who would discuss this rationally and without the political animus, but it's hard to get past the chorus of hate.

And the standard for that removal?

Violating terms of service. All sorts of spam calls get blocked or labeled.

No they aren't. Being a platform or publisher does not matter according to the actual law. The only thing that matters is whether the content came from a 3rd party. There is decades of case law to back this up.


The only people I've seen make the publisher/platform argument are right-wing sites that are upset racists are being banned. My apologies if you are finding this incorrect information on left-wing or neutral sites, I just haven't seen it. Regardless, we should just base it on the actual text which does not say what you are alluding to.

Now if you're making the argument that we should change Section 230, that could be a good debate. If websites were responsible for 3rd party content, it would dramatically change the internet and cause much stricter moderation (which seems to be the opposite of what you want).

I do think the government forcing private businesses to host content would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. Not sure if that is what you're suggesting or if you're looking to nationalize certain websites.

You are correct. I would add that phone companies (landlines) were regulated much more stringently due to being monopolies in most of the country.

There is no monopoly when it comes to web publishing.

Actually, there's a federal law that requires phone companies to adopt call authentication technologies to assist consumers with verifying legitimate calls and blocking spam. The TRACED Act.

I’ve said it before: while I would vote Dem if I was in the US, both sides are equally as polarised as the other, and it’s impossible to have any nuanced argument with either MAGA or the entrenched liberals.

It’s the same here too, not just an American thing - debate is largely dead, if you veer from the party line you’re a heretic

Edit to add: often this applies if you ask a question - you’re usually berated rather than educated

That's exactly the argument I'm making. Either it's a utility and you're responsible for how you use it (like a phone) or it's a publisher and they're responsible for what they publish. One or the other. Section 230 simply provides protection for both. I think supporters simply assumed the platforms would remain relatively Libertarian in perspective. Obviously, the law addresses other types of internet-related businesses.

As for the straw-manning, whatever. It's a shame there are so many right-wing and left-wing "news" sites out there. I try and read a wide range. But this was the most recent site I read regarding the law: 47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. It's all there. I don't think the people who wrote the law anticipated that Silicon Valley would get so involved in politics.

Yeah. I keep hoping... but I keep getting disappointed. I don't know how to vote in this polarized world. I don't like the direction of the left the last decade or so, but I really don't like Trump.

And when I was young, it was the right wing that stood for censorship and loads of unpleasantness. I leaned left for a long time. If Trump runs again, I give up on politics. He is never going to listen to nuanced anything.

I understand the argument you are making. I am just pointing out that it is not what the law says or how it has been interpreted by the courts (or the people who wrote the bill).

If you think websites should be public utilities, so be it. It would not just dramatically alter the makeup of the internet (imagine the spam), but require some changes to laws and constitutional amendments.

If you're wondering where Stockton got his information.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ccines-spread/

It's "vaccines cause autism" all over again.

Post-Covid, there are things I didn't think twice about before that I see in a whole new light now. Like going through a drive thru and watching the worker put a fist full of ketchup packets into the bag with her bare hands and seeing them sitting on top of my fries. That's definitely one of them.

Not sure where to put this but it seems appropriate. I got contacted today to see if I would be open to be interviewed by a reporter from the WSJ for an article regarding being a stay at home dad during the pandemic.

And are you open ?:)

Sure. Why not!

Uh, might want to coordinate your stories with the missus here. Don't want to surprise her.

And oh, no drinking or during the interview.

EXTRA drinking during the interview.

A poorly-hidden bottle of whiskey on the edge of the camera's view would be ideal, I think. Might as well be authentic to the parent-in-a-pandemic experience.

It was for a print article, and I just did it. Was pretty cool. Focused on liberal leaning people who are basically ready to move on from the pandemic. Lots of discussion about schools, conflicting information, disorganization around communication, etc...

Interesting article on why some people don't catch covid. I seem to catch the common cold every year pre-covid so this may apply to me? For the past 2 years, I've not had to pop any Tylenol Cold & Flu and don't remember having any serious bouts of cold or flu (other than for sniffles and some mild coughing).

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/03/why-...hers-dont.html
He said that early data suggests these individuals have naturally acquired immunity from previous infections with common cold coronaviruses. Around 20% of common cold infections are due to common cold coronaviruses, he said, “but why some individuals maintain levels of cross-reactive immunity remains unknown.”

Do we really know if we've had Covid or not? How is that determined? I've wondered this myself. Both my girls got Covid in November of 2020 and one lived with us through it and neither my wife nor I got it - we think. I've been exposed many times to people I know ended up positive and never got symptoms. I've had about 5 or 6 tests and all have come back negative, but that doesn't mean I haven't had Covid at some point.

Isn't it possible we got it, but had no symptoms? Other than PCR or rapid tests, neither of us have had any other kind of test that would show whether we may have had it in the past. I'm not sure I can claim I've never had Covid with any kind of certainty. I just know I haven't had any symptoms or tested positive.

Antibody test would tell you but they're something that's common. Texas is running a study that would give you 3 free antibody tests but you had to sign up for it early in the pandemic (we missed out).

SI

Before COVID, I thought I knew how the immune system worked based on what I learned in 6th grade. You get exposed; you get antibodies; then you are immune going forward.

Turns out, that model is so simplistic that it is basically like knowing nothing.

Which makes me wonder how many other things there are out there that I think that I understand but that I actually have no idea about.