Cliff Varnell

Let’s say for the sake of argument there is an active faction within the American Deep State devoted to a eugenicist vision of culling the human herd.

The dream is to unleash a global virus that mutates faster than medical science can mitigate it.  A Plandemic.

There are two obstacles in the way of this vision: other factions in the Deep State dedicated to containing pandemic outbreaks; the prospect of the swift development of a safe and effective vaccine.

No professional politician wants their legacy sullied with a mass death pandemic.  

But a charismatic amateur in the White House who’s entirely self-absorbed might do everything possible to make it worse. 
 
There would need to be a robust anti-vaccination movement to slow down community immunity, allowing the virus to spin off variants that might not get knocked out by vaxx.

This isn’t to say there are not reasons to be vaxx hesitant -- the better the anti-vaxx argument in general the easier to demonize the covid vaxx in particular.

Of course, this virus would have to disproportionately effect older people and non-whites.

Some people might say that’s exactly what’s happened.

It’s probably all a coincidence. 

Is this written by Arthur Krock?

The pride of trippin’ Texas.

38 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Sorry, I thought we were discussing the cooperative censorship on this issue between government and bigtech.

We are.  It looks as if the government is doing a bang-up job censoring anti-vaccine messaging when 7 - 8 million new anti-vaxx social media accounts pop up in 18 months.

38 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

 

It's not difficult to explain Cliff. Simply, more and more people began to realize there is something wrong about what they thought they knew about vaccines; due to people like RFK Jr's social media presence.

My point is that people have options when it comes to sources of information.  RFK Jr has options, too.  It’s hard to buy the idea anyone is being shut out.

38 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

For the good of all, I think we're done here.

I appreciate your civility.

13 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Do we need further proof that government an social media are in tandem censoring information Cliff? Seeing you viewed the Schiff demand for "moderation" as old news, this was today.

The Schiff letter was sent in Feb 2019.

Then what happened?

A growing number of anti-vaccine activists, emboldened by their rising social media following, have helped the movement gain strength in the United States. A report by the Center for Countering Digital Health in July 2020 found social media accounts held by anti-vaxxers have increased their following by at least 7·8 million people since 2019.</q>
 
Dennis, how do you explain the explosion of anti-vaccine social media accounts over a period of time you insist the Government was cracking down?

Quote

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2021-02-19/exclusive-white-house-working-with-facebook-and-twitter-to-tackle-anti-vaxxers

Same here, and it is regrettable to certain degree.

 

 

1 minute ago, Chris Barnard said:

Ohh a fact... It might be a little bit too complicated for your closed mind but, history is written by the victors:

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” 

You may want to think about that in the context of the JFK assassination and ponder it. Thanks to declassified papers and research we have a lot of "facts" that are no longer "facts". It's an ignorant argument from you. 
 

What argument of mine?... Are you okay?  The above is gibberish.

1 minute ago, Chris Barnard said:

From viewing your posts, you look at the world in terms of red and blue, or right and left.

I put the finger on Averell Harriman for the JFK hit.

Harriman was a liberal Democrat.

1 minute ago, Chris Barnard said:

It's a divide and rule narrative that is marketed to you, that you have bought into hook, line and sinker. There is only money and power today. 

If you didn’t spend so much time projecting your inadequacies you might learn something.

6 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Ahhh so you quoted the wrong post, now you're chopping about with others to desperately try to make a case.

Excuse me? I responded directly to your conclusions that social media are run by the intelligence agencies — you can only speculate as to the nature of intelligence/big tech collusion.

Your ill-informed “automatic assumptions” are not facts.

6 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

I don't know why you'd take exception to any of that.

I take exception to your insistence on declaring as fact the extent to which intel influences social media.

6 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

As for speculation, we wouldn't be discussing it if it was all public common knowledge, right? The problems you have is that you seem to have zero understanding of psychology or how to look at a sequence of events and see the bigger picture.

The big picture your confirmation bias won’t allow you to see is the factional nature of the US intelligence community.

The subject is over your head.

6 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

<snip the usual ad hominem >

Free Speech Is Not the Same As Free Reach
https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-is-not-the-same-as-free-reach/

THE ALGORITHMS THAT govern how we find information online are once again in the news—but you have to squint to find them. 

“Trump Accuses Google of Burying Conservative News in Search Results,” reads an August 28 New York Times headline. The piece features a bombastic president, a string of bitter tweets, and accusations of censorship. “Algorithms” are mentioned, but not until the twelfth paragraph.

Trump—like so many other politicians and pundits—has found search and social media companies to be convenient targets in the debate over free speech and censorship online. “They have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD,” the president recently tweeted. He added: “They are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation---will be addressed!”

Trump is partly right: They are controlling what we can and cannot see. But “they” aren’t the executives leading Google, Facebook, and other technology companies. “They” are the opaque, influential algorithms that determine what content billions of internet users read, watch, and share next.

These algorithms are invisible, but they have an outsized impact on shaping individuals’ experience online and society at large. Indeed, YouTube’s video-recommendation algorithm inspires 700,000,000 hours of watch time per day—and can spread misinformation, disrupt elections, and incite violence. Algorithms like this need fixing.

But in this moment, the conversation we should be having—how can we fix the algorithms?—is instead being co-opted and twisted by politicians and pundits howling about censorship and miscasting content moderation as the demise of free speech online. It would be good to remind them that free speech does not mean free reach. There is no right to algorithmic amplification. In fact, that’s the very problem that needs fixing.

TO SEE HOW this algorithm amplification works, simply look to RT, or  Russia Today, a Russian state-owned propaganda outlet that’s also among the most popular YouTube presences. RT has amassed more than 6 billion views across 22 channels, more than MSNBC and Fox News combined. According to YouTube chief product officer Neal Mohan, 70 percent of views on YouTube are from recommendations—so the site’s algorithms are largely responsible for amplifying RT’s propaganda hundreds of millions of times.

How? Most RT viewers don’t set out in search of Russian propaganda. The videos that rack up the views are RT’s clickbait-y, gateway content: videos of towering tsunamis, meteors striking buildings, shark attacks, amusement park accidents, some that are years old but have comments from within an hour ago. This disaster porn is highly engaging; the videos have been viewed tens of millions of times and are likely watched until the end. As a result, YouTube’s algorithm likely believes other RT content is worth suggesting to the viewers of that content—and so, quickly, an American YouTube user looking for news finds themselves watching Russia’s take on Hillary Clinton, immigration, and current events. These videos are served up in autoplay playlists alongside content from legitimate news organizations, giving RT itself increased legitimacy by association.

The social internet is mediated by algorithms: recommendation engines, search, trending, autocomplete, and other mechanisms that predict what we want to see next. The algorithms don’t understand what is propaganda and what isn’t, or what is “fake news” and what is fact-checked. Their job is to surface relevant content (relevant to the user, of course), and they do it exceedingly well. So well, in fact, that the engineers who built these algorithms are sometimes baffled: “Even the creators don’t always understand why it recommends one video instead of another,” says Guillaume Chaslot, an ex-YouTube engineer who worked on the site’s algorithm.

These opaque algorithms with their singular purpose—“keep watching”—coupled with billions of users is a dangerous recipe. In recent years, we’ve seen how dire the consequences can be. Propaganda like RT content is circulated far and wide to disinform and worsen polarization, especially during democratic elections. YouTube’s algorithms can also radicalize by suggesting “white supremacist rants, Holocaust denials, and other disturbing content,” Zeynep Tufekci recently wrote in the Times. “YouTube may be one of the most powerful radicalizing instruments of the 21st century.”

The problem extends beyond YouTube, though. On Google search, dangerous anti-vaccine misinformation can commandeer the top results. And on Facebook, hate speech can thrive and fuel genocide. A United Nations report about the genocide in Myanmar reads: “The role of social media is significant. Facebook has been a useful instrument for those seeking to spread hate, in a context where for most users Facebook is the Internet … The extent to which Facebook posts and messages have led to real-world discrimination and violence must be independently and thoroughly examined.”

So what can we do about it? The solution isn’t to outlaw algorithmic ranking or make noise about legislating what results Google can return. Algorithms are an invaluable tool for making sense of the immense universe of information online. There’s an overwhelming amount of content available to fill any given person’s feed or search query; sorting and ranking is a necessity, and there has never been evidence indicating that the results display systemic partisan bias. That said, unconscious bias is a concern in any algorithm; this is why tech companies have investigated conservative claims of bias since the Facebook Trending News debacle of 2016. There hasn’t been any credible evidence. But there is a trust problem, and a lack of understanding of how rankings and feeds work, and that allows bad-faith politicking to gain traction. The best solution to that is to increase transparency and internet literacy, enabling users to have a better understanding of why they see what they see—and to build these powerful curatorial systems with a sense of responsibility for what they return.

There have been positive steps in this direction. The examples of harms mentioned above have sparked congressional investigations aimed at understanding how tech platforms shape our conversations and our media consumption. In an upcoming Senate hearing next week, the Senate Intelligence Committee will ask Jack Dorsey of Twitter and Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook to provide an accounting of how, specifically, they are taking steps to address computational propaganda.

42 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

TBH you are making yourself a target here with the straw man argument.

What straw man argument?

Quote

On the contrary, I am the one with a life, who isn't spending the day with empty eyes glued to a computer screen in case someone replies.

You spend a lot of time insulting people who challenge your conclusions.  

Quote

I think you need to take a break. For me to get "butt hurt" which I guess is a colloquial term for "offended", I would need to view you as my equal or superior, not just some internet xxxxx. It's so easy to spot, as oddly Facebook, which you hate because you are scared it will propagandise you, 

I didn’t say anything like that.  The extent you take this all personally is noted, and notable.

Quote

 

and YouTube are full of people very much like yourself seeking attention. I can tell you without any shadow of a doubt that this back and forth is only going to leave you feeling lower, not me. Do some exercise, stick to a circadian rhythm with sleep, eat right and you'll up your serotonin and dopamine levels and as a result you won't find yourself being a negative online. The recipe is that simple. 
 

Wow...just wow.

Quote

This is what I actually said:

"The public perception of big tech and the separation from the state is interesting. If we thought about any other significant power in the world, not from the west, we'd automatically assume there is state interference with the tech firms of that country, as its in the national interest.
 

Your “automatic assumption” is purely a product of your imagination, a conclusion you’ve reached prior to investigation.

Facebook favors right-wing news sites.

FACEBOOK BOMBSHELL REVEALS MAJOR RIGHT-WING BIAS

https://voters.us.com/facebook-bombshell-reveals-major-right-wing-bias/

You wrongly assume the American state you accuse of interference is a monolithic entity.  The American Deep State is multi-polar.  The right-wing Bible-thumping Dominionist Proto-Autocracy maintains a strong force in the intelligence and military communities.

Trumpistan.
 

But, in the USA the opposite is assumed, that there is this separation and no direct or subversive interference. Is that a logical conclusion? Not really. 
 

But you have no clue as to the factional interests within the interfering bodies.

Edward Snowden waged internecine war within the US intelligence community which resulted in a legislative takedown of the NSA/DEA bulk communications collections — the fingerprints of the CIA all over it.

Are the government able to access your cellphones at the touch of a button, are they able to access your Facebook, Insta, Youtube, Gmail etc? Absolutely. Are they able to do that with the blessing of these tech firms? Definitely. The 5G network debacle between Britain and Huawei, with the US pressuring Britain not to accept Huawei on security grounds has been interesting to watch. The reason being claimed is China state interference. The other side is the claim that the USA doesn't have an easy access backdoor into the network, like they do with others. Is it in he best interests of our security, maybe. The better the devil you know argument is always made. 

The double standard is always that if someone else is doing something invasive, it's a threat to national security and if our own country is doing it, then it's also because of national security, protecting us. We have also seen the propensity for misuse by the state, whether that's in the Oliver Stone film "Snowden" or in terms of intellectual property theft, sexual blackmail, surveillance etc. We are all sold this lie about terrorists coming to take away our freedoms, very sophisticated networks of terrorists that live in caves or villages without internet and obviously match the Pentagon in sophistication and resources. 

Some of you may want to look into DARPA, the ARPA-NET, the origins of Google, Stanford research institute and even the lifelog / facebook coincidence. If the government wants someone censored on social media platforms, it will be done. If you think RFK Jr had 700,000 followers, do you have any idea how his social media reach will scale up on a post that's interesting? The power is immense. If you then consider vaccines are the hot topic, at a time the populations of the globe are hysterical with fear of Covid19, then if his message is warning of dangers or contrarian in general, it means everyone on earth is likely to hear about it. He has credibility as an author, lawyer, activist and mostly because he is the son and nephew of two very well liked guys on a global level. Whether you believe his views and others on certain vaccines, autism or Covid19, is another matter. But, I can see why government would want to censor him and free speech, whether he is right or wrong."

If that's confusing to you, fair enough. 🙂 

No, it’s quite clear.  You wrote:

To me the idea that the tentacles of government security agencies are not deeply involved in big tech is patently absurd.  </q>

Given that the factional interests within “government security agencies” are far from transparent, all you can do is speculate as to the nature of Intel/Big Tech collusion.

Your speculation is not proof, Chris.

Quote

 

7 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

It does figure they'd be your close friends if they are impressionable and easily propagandised by Facebook and QAnon, it sounds like more of symptom of being weak-minded.

Nothing more weak minded than chronic ad hominem.

Quote

In the grand scheme of things there are a whole host of things aside from Facebook that you and your friends should stay clear of. 

Btw, Chris, your opinions don’t count as fact.  You seem under the impression they do.

I hate Facebook.  

Several close friends of mine drank the Trumpistani kool-aid and now spout QAnon talking points they picked up on FB.

I’d love to see Facebook go the way of MySpace.  My objections to FB are at least as strong as the objections of anti-vaxxers crying about censorship.

But FB is a private company no matter how many otherwise bright, decent people they brain-wash.  They have a right to moderate their joint anyway they want.

I think it’s funny that anti-vaxxers raise hell about FB “censorship” but not a word about right-wing cult recruitment.

18 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Ohhhh, I am not being mature? 🙂 

Discussing issues and replying to your inane comments are two very separate things.

I asked a question — what’s the proof that the US government censored RFK Jr?

Instead of giving a straight answer you melt down into personal insults.

18 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

I don't even think I am being particularly personal, just honest as usual but, I do accept that some are easily bruised or offended. 

That’s funny from a guy who gets butt hurt when his claims are challenged.

18 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

There is a bit of a correlation developing with you and ending up in this situation. Why not try to be a better person? 

There you go again.  Can’t help yourself, can you?

18 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

I'll refer you back to my post that you misread or couldn't understand. 

What’s the proof the US government censored RFK Jr.?

9 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

This request makes me wonder if you either didn't read my post properly, perhaps you have something impairing your cognitive function or, it's just another pathetic straw man argument you are trying to start here.
Whichever it may be, it isn't coming across as very smart, Cliff. 

You don’t appear capable of discussing these issues without getting personal.

It isn’t coming off as very mature.

Instagram kicked RFK Jr. off, not the US government.

19 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/schiff-sends-letter-to-google-facebook-regarding-anti-vaccine-misinformation

This is 2 years old.

19 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Good luck Cliff. It will be tough to hold onto private property rights in the future anyway if this Gates/WEF/Central Banker push actually succeeds. It's not difficult to see where the demand for censorship is coming from on this issue.

According to Zuckerberg in October 2019 the demand came from inside the Facebook “community” to drop anti-vaccine misinformation.

19 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/how-bill-gates-controls-global-messaging-and-censorship/

Jeff/Chris, good posts. That Edward Curtin article is on point with this topic. Another link to the same article for those that may have missed it from Jeff.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/real-reason-robert-f-kennedy-jr-censored/

8 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

So, to be clear, government regulation of business when it comes to speech/content ok -in your view-on other media such as books, magazines, newspapers, film and tv.  
 

What government regulation?

8 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Government regulation of hiring/firing practices, insurance, pay rate all ok too in your view. 

But in your view social media is a special entity which enjoys immunity from government regulation?

Tell me what this government regulation looks like.  I keep asking people this and never get an answer.

8 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

lol, ok.  I’ll have seconds in the cafeteria line.  One cannot have enough ambrosia. 

And regulation of social media moderation consists of what?

10 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

I can see why government would want to censor him and free speech, whether he is right or wrong. 

Please show the proof the government censored RFK Jr.

56 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

The people running the big tech social media companies didn’t independently wake up one morning and decide heightened moderation and withdrawal of service was the best next step for their business models.

Facebook woke up one morning and realized it was a recruitment site for Fascist crazies.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/08/07/reports-facebook-fires-employee-who-shared-proof-of-right-wing-favoritism/

Reports: Facebook Fires Employee Who Shared Proof of Right Wing Favoritism

Former employees, speaking anonymously, told NBC that they were concerned Facebook gave conservative outlets preferential treatment to avoid criticisms of anti-conservative bias. </q>

Quote

This all came about as result of pressure from US Congressional committees bolstered by advocacy for this result from the influential legacy media such as the NY Times.

You’re grossly exaggerating the influence of Congressional committees.  Zuckerberg has been under intense internal pressure within Facebook.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7605687/Republican-Congressman-pushes-anti-vaxxer-claims-questions-Mark-Zuckerberg.html

• Zuckerberg said we 'hear consistently from our community that people want us to stop the spread of misinformation'

Quote

As usual, Cliff asks all the wrong questions. The notion that the government should force social media outlets to carry controversial posts hasn’t been advocated by anyone.

Why couldn’t Dennis come out and say that?

Quote

The issue is whether the government should use its powerful influence and ability to regulate business in an effort to limit speech.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-twitter-ceos-testify-zuckerberg-dorsey-senate-hearing-watch-live-stream-today-2020-11-17/

Please point to the Congressional edict requiring Facebook et al to ban anti-vax.

Quote

Which is what has happened.

From the cbs article linked above:

Facebook’s fact-checking rules stipulate that the site can limit the reach of pages that repeatedly share misinformation. But NBC News obtained evidence that Facebook relaxed its rules for Right Wing accounts such as “Breitbart, former Fox News personalities Diamond and Silk, the nonprofit media outlet PragerU and the pundit Charlie Kirk.”

Normally, Facebook’s fact-checking teams give “strikes” to accounts posting misinformation. Yet documents given to NBC show that some employees “with direct oversight from company leadership, deleted strikes during the review process that were issued to some conservative partners for posting misinformation over the last six months.” </q>
 
You don’t have a problem with right-wing bias on Facebook, do you , Jeff?

Quote

Pretending this is all just the expression of private property rights is not just short-sighted, it entirely misses the point.

And your remedy for this problem is...?

Quote

RFK Jr’s positions extend beyond vaccine issues, and generally follow a progressive and international outlook. Shutting down his Instagram page - with 700,000 followers - eliminates an entire forum for networking and information sharing for a large number of people. Edward Curtin discusses this as a form of informational warfare:

https://off-guardian.org/2021/02/14/opening-the-cias-can-of-worms/

The baby got thrown out with the bath water.  I suggest you help organize a boycott.

25 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

25 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

So Cliff, just to make sure I understand you, you would not want any government regulation over social media moderation. Is that correct?

Correct.

Quote

Yet are you perfectly fine with government regulation of other business actions, i.e. whom to hire/fire?   The government currently regulates so many areas of private business. Thus, this seems odd because if you want private business to be regulated by the government in some areas but say they are free to do what they want in other areas, despite the fact that business actions Both affect, and have an effect on, freedoms, then you are are viewing the constitution as a cafeteria where one can pick and choose what one likes.  

That’s been done already.

https://www.mydoorsign.com/blog/right-to-refuse-service-to-anyone/

Can business owners really refuse service to anyone?

Under federal anti-discrimination laws, businesses can refuse service to any person for any reason, unless the business is discriminating against a protected class.

At the national level, protected classes include:

• Race or color
• National origin or citizenship status
• Religion or creed
• Sex
• Age
• Disability, pregnancy, or genetic information
• Veteran status

Some states, like California, have more protected classes than the federal baseline.  In addition to the above factors, California adds:

• Marital status
• Sexual orientation or gender identity
• Medical condition, or AIDS/HIV status
• Military or veteran status
• Political affiliations or activities
• Status as a victim of domestic violence, assault, or stalking

Contact  your state attorney general or consult a lawyer for details on how your state handles its particular antidiscrimination law. </q>
 
Internet commenters are not a “protected class.”

Quote

 

Just my observation. 
So, should government be out of the boardroom or should government regulate it? 

48 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Moderation = free speech? That's kind of bass ackwards Cliff.

Not if you believe in property rights.

Quote

Moderation would be something like violating community rules that all members agree on when they sign up, like this forum for instance.

It’s whatever the owners of the platform say it is.

Quote

I challenge you to find the IG rules that state asking a question about someones' death is not allowed or could get you banned.

It’s like the sign over the barroom mirror:

What does “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” really mean?

https://www.mydoorsign.com/blog/right-to-refuse-service-to-anyone/

Internet prevaricators are not a “protected class.”

Quote

If you want to defend to the right to "moderate" questions, that's fine, but that is what your argument boils down to.

I’m trying to figure out what *your* argument is in regard to *your* pet issue.

It’s like pulling teeth.

Should the US Government force Instagram to carry RFK Jr.’s posts?

Quote

 

Here's another reason why I completely disagree Cliff. Facebook (who owns IG), just like Amazon, Google and other BigTech companies that you defend, have many ties with some of the shadiest parts of the American power structure.

When did I defend Amazon or Google?

Quote

There are potentially so many contracts, the public can not even discover some of them (link below). The point being, it is somewhat ridiculous to claim that these bigtech companies are completely private and independent of government.
 

I’m talking about the inherent right to free speech of owners of communications platforms.

You want to change the subject.

Should the US Government force Twitter and Facebook to carry Trump’s lies about the 2020 election?

Quote

If it was just BigTech, it would still be a problem, but its actually worse than that Cliff.

So because of bad actors in big tech all internet moderation should be criminalized?

Quote

US and UK intelligence have "declared war" on any vaccine criticism. Would you like to defend them as well?

You can’t tell the difference between a government agency and a private company?

Quote

 

I know that in the JFK case, I cannot really think of an example of a US intelligence agency that willingly told the truth about too many aspects of the case. In fact, I recall a "Get Garrison" team at CIA. That was in the 60's, now the tools of propaganda and disinformation are far more sophisticated and less transparent.

You’re straining so hard to employ guilt-by-association it’s kinda painful to watch.

Quote

Do you think we are getting an objective representation of this issue in our MSM media Cliff?

https://www.europereloaded.com/us-uk-intel-agencies-declare-cyber-war-on-independent-media-over-vaccines/

Regarding BigTech/government ties, I found a MSM source for your comfort.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/thousands-contracts-highlight-quiet-ties-between-big-tech-u-s-n1233171

Ok.  Should the US Government ban moderation on social media?

Yes, or No?

16 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Cliff/Kirk, RFK Jr. was banned from IG for saying Hank Aaron recently had the Moderna vaccine and then died within a few weeks. That is a non-contestable fact.

Irrelevant.

Should the US Government — in the name of free speech — force Instagram to carry RFK Jr.’s posts?

Your sudden upset over Instagram lying about RFK Jr. stands in contrast to your silence over Trump et al lying all the time about everything.

16 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

 

 

The legacy media then made up a story about how the coroner's office assured everyone his death was not vaccine related, that was scientifically not possible as RFK Jr discovered they never had his body at any point, much less examined it. This has not been redacted as far as I know. That story is relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things and I (or RFK Jr) am certainly not saying he died from the vaccine. The point is that we are not allowed to even ask the question or have the debate.

If you must have my personal answer to your pet question for some reason,

It’s your pet issue, Dennis.  You are the one with a highly selective sensitivity to prevarication.

16 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

 

I would say the Equal Protection Clause would be my starting point. How is banning someone from IG for asking questions and stating facts any more acceptable than banning a black/white/red/anything person from a private golf course?

It’s a free speech issue.  I think people who develop communication platforms exercise their free speech rights when they moderate their platform. 

16 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

 

One difference might be that IG is much closer to a public forum than a private golf course is, meaning, as far as the public is concerned, it might even be a more profound form of discrimination in certain ways.

If you put a Trump sign on my lawn and I take it down does that mean you are the victim of a “profound form of discrimination”?

16 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Here's your polisci101 question: Should the government allow any private business to prevent access to their service/goods based on what they think?

Based on universal mind reading?

If I develop an internet platform my right to free speech allows me to ban writing or images I find abhorrent.

16 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

1 hour ago, Dennis Berube said:

Are you serious Cliff? Government officials serve and answer to the public, obviously private citizens do not.

You’re avoiding the question.  Should the US Government require Instagram — in the name of free speech — to carry RFK Jr.’s anti-vax message?

Quote

With government, the public at least theoretically has the capability to hold them responsible or at least demand answers.

So you’re okay with the Government dictating the content on social media?

Quote

I agree with Cory's statements, it is odd people are fine with so much private influence, but can't stand it from government.

I don’t have a problem with people moderating the content on media entities they own.  I have a problem with the Government criminalizing said moderation, which is what you seem to propose.

Quote

I would at least partially attribute that to many years of anti-government propaganda from such areas as the Koch brothers, Rockefellers, CFR types etc... Of course government is bad for them, its the only feasible entity standing in their way. But having "left" wingers believe that too is rather amazing.

Lots of lefties believe in private property rights.  You obviously don’t.

Quote

Cliff, make the remedy whatever you want.  

No Dennis, you are the one claiming there is a problem with Instagram banning RFK Jr.  It’s the remedy you are beating around the bush.

6 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

James DiEugenio, dreadnought researcher, has broadly posited that JFK was assassinated largely due to his foreign policy positions. Certainly, a defensible view. 

I apply a negative template to DiEugenio’s analysis of JFK’s foreign policies.

What does DiEugenio leave out?

The Bay of Pigs, the partition of Laos, regime change in So. Vietnam.

It was Kennedy’s mistakes that got him killed, not his enlightened successes.

Just now, Chris Barnard said:

No 🙂 
I have a life and, prefer to add to my knowledge, not subtract from it, Cliff. I genuinely think you'd be better off playing in the YouTube comments, you'd get more biters there. 
 

Is this coherent?

Just now, Chris Barnard said:

On the music front, I am pleased for you, that's a great way to earn your keep. It's one of my passions too.

I prefer to debate facts, not speculate on the character short-comings of those with whom I disagree.