Coronavirus

Biden Wants To Punish Facebook for the Government's Own Vaccine Failures

Federal health bureaucrats should stop scapegoating social media.

|

The federal government is stepping up its war on Facebook: President Joe Biden has accused Mark Zuckerberg's social media platform of failing to purge anti-vaccine content, thus contributing to vaccine hesitancy and "killing people," said the president.

Now the White House is considering methods of tinkering with Section 230, the federal statute that immunizes internet platforms from legal liability, in order to punish Facebook for failing to do everything the government wants.

"We're reviewing that, and certainly they should be held accountable," said Kate Bedingfield, White House communications director, in response to a question about Section 230 posed by Morning Joe's Mika Brzezinski.

Biden has long supported getting rid of Section 230, though it would take an act of Congress to do so. Ironically, Section 230 is equally unpopular with many Republicans—including former President Donald Trump, who has called for its total repeal—because they consider it a sort of special perk enjoyed by tech companies that are purportedly hostile to conservative users. But the Biden administration's latest threats should disabuse Republicans of their anti-230 notions once and for all. The White House wants Facebook to proactively censor more content, and views Section 230 as an obstacle getting in the way of that goal. Repealing Section 230 is thus not a great solution to the alleged problem of tech companies banning too many provocative right-wing accounts; Democrats in the federal government want to repeal Section 230 so that tech companies have no choice but to ban more content.

Anti-Facebook Republicans are making a tactical error; the Biden White House, on the other hand, is just plain wrong about the degree to which social media is responsible for vaccine hesitancy. By focusing on the perceived harms of too much anti-vax content on Facebook, the administration is neglecting a dozen other strategies it could pursue to boost countrywide vaccination.

For one, it's far from clear that social media—or Facebook in particular—is predominantly responsible for vaccine hesitancy, a problem that predates the internet. Facebook users are actually more likely to be vaccinated than the average U.S. citizen, according to the company's data.

"The data shows that 85 percent of Facebook users in the U.S. have been or want to be vaccinated against COVID-19," wrote Guy Rosen, Facebook's vice president of integrity. "President Biden's goal was for 70 percent of Americans to be vaccinated by July 4. Facebook is not the reason this goal was missed."

Misinformation exists on every medium and in every form of communication from radio to television to word of mouth. The government itself has spread misinformation about COVID-19, from early (bad) guidance on masks to coronavirus czar Anthony Fauci's deliberate misstatements about herd immunity. Even when it comes to vaccines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was initially cautious about letting vaccinated individuals discard masks and social distancing protocols, which might have made the vaccine seem pointless for some low-risk individuals. It's naive to presume that social media is the primary driver of vaccine hesitancy.

"We don't have good measures of what people see on social media or any ability to link it to their vaccination behavior," noted Brendan Nyhan, a professor of government at Dartmouth College who thinks the harm posed by social media is overstated.

Even the focus on Facebook, as opposed to other sites like YouTube—where anti-vaccine content is probably more widespread—betrays the government's limited understanding of the scope of these issues. It seems that many Democrats still incorrectly attribute Hillary Clinton's 2016 loss to Facebook malfeasance: They have updated their grievances but retained the same target for misplaced ire.

If the White House wants to promote vaccination—a worthy goal!—it should stop being so obsessed with what's happening on Facebook, and social media more broadly. Instead, Biden should push the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to, you know, actually approve the vaccines, which are currently available under emergency use authorization. Despite the global pandemic, federal regulators are proceeding as if there's no reason to rush: Full authorization of the Pfizer vaccine is not expected until January. If the government wants to ease reluctant people's trepidation that the vaccines are in some sense experimental, moving faster on this front would do more good than heckling Mark Zuckerberg.

NEXT: Virtual Access to Doctors During the Pandemic Changed the Lives of Patients With Disabilities. Now That Care Is in Jeopardy.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Federal health bureaucrats should stop scapegoating social media.

    They should but they won’t. One of the first rules of being a bureaucrat is “always blame someone else for your failures, preferably someone in the private sector so that you can use them to increase your own power.”

    1. On the other hand, Facebook is the opium of the people. Whatever they do to Facebook is probably well deserved.

      1. What they’ll do is turn Facebook into a partisan tool, and while they may deserve that we don’t.

    2. perhaps not vaccinations but the 1000s of other lies and mis “informations” on facebook need to be curtailed. In this action I could ,for once, think Bidet is right.

  2. First Facebook helps the Russians elect Trump, then they censor Trump supporters to get Biden elected, and now they’re killing people?

    Just nuke ’em from orbit. Get it over with.

    1. Facebook is committing genocide. They even operate a concentration camp in New Albany, OH. Or is it a data center? It’s hard to be woke these days when newspeak is changing so quickly.

  3. Duh, you don’t stay in government as long as Biden without knowing how to blame a scapegoat.

    It’s always those pesky wreckers getting in the way, don’t you know.

    1. It’s all theater anyway.

      Three quarters of the Republicans and all the Democrats are in on the show.

  4. Try to look at this from Biden’s perspective.

    He delivered the vaccine just as he promised during the campaign. And right when he was about to eradicate the virus for good, his friends at Facebook let him down by allowing content that contradicts the government’s current position. IMO Biden has every right to be annoyed.

    #LibertariansForBiden

    1. I thought Trump was promising the vaccine during his campaign?

      1. That’s a parody account, and the vaccine was developed before Biden was in the White House.

        The obvious errors of fact are part of what makes that particular parody account so funny! Now you know.

    2. The mere fact that your precious Dear Leader actually got the vaccine totally blew my perception of Him as a virile specimen of masculinity. Besides, you know that the reason we have Biden as President and not his majesty is because of gaslighting dicks like yourself. The reason you are wallowing in misery and increasingly desperate attempts at humor can be laid squarely at your feet, douchebag.

      1. On the contrary, I’m absolutely thrilled with how the past half-year has gone. The Biden Era has been even more billionaire-friendly than I could have dreamed.

        Speaking of which, you know what you should do as a highly principled and totally sincere “socia1ist” now that Jeff Bezos is worth over $200,000,000,000? You should make a few dozen more comments freaking out about state-level abortion restrictions.

        #AbortionAboveAll

      2. Yes OBL is the reason Biden’s in the WH. Well that and hundreds of thousands stuffed ballots.

      3. Trump delivered the vaccine.
        Cuomo delivered death sentences to the elderly.
        Biden delivered a bowel movement in his pants.
        And you failed to deliver a mortgage payment.

        1. Well done there.

        2. Mortgage payment? As a socialist he almost certainly lives with his parents.

          1. No, he bragged about sticking ‘the man’ with his mortgage when he managed to get underwater in SF Bay Area real estate, and that takes record levels of stooooopid!

    3. Try to look at this from Biden’s perspective.

      He delivered the vaccine just as he promised during the campaign.

      Er, Joseph Robinette Biden received his second dose of the Pfizer vaccine on 11 Jan 2021. Trump delivered the vaccine to Biden.

      #LibertariansForJotard

    4. Biden delivered the vaccine? You have just recently arrived to this planet? FB should not allow the content that contradicts the government’s current position? Big Biden is watching you!
      WAR IS PEACE
      FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
      IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

    5. OBL best poster.

      1. Got several with this one.

  5. Per Biden’s follow up comments, he doesn’t blame Facebook. He blames the 12 individuals who were spreading “misinformation”–which is arguably worse. The Biden administration was specifically flagging posts and pages for disagreeing with the CDC, etc., and that is a clear violation of the First Amendment. You might try to claim that Facebook censoring people is evidence of them exercising their property and association rights, but the White House targeting individuals for censorship (by Biden’s own admission) is indefensible.

    1. If you view the “flagging” of misinformation by the government in context with the government simultaneously dragging the leaders of these platforms in front of congressional committees with the power to break them up or sufficiently impede their progress, it really does come close to 1st Amendment violations.

      1. The antitrust is absolutely that. They did the same thing by imposing the Hollywood blacklists on the studios under the threat of antitrust and breaking them up, too, during the Red Scare. That was just nakedly violating the First Amendment.

        This is the same thing.

        In November of 2020, Lina Khan helped write a report for the House Democrats stating that Facebook should be broken up because the lack of competition was leading them to tolerate “misinformation” on their platform.

        Biden subsequently not only appointed her to the FTC but made her chair of the FTC–which is suing to break up Facebook.

        What I was saying was that even IF IF IF you somehow twist what the government is doing to Facebook, pressuring them to delete anything that contradicts the CDC or the NIH, for instance, into an example of Facebook exercising their property and association rights, that’s all out the window now.

        The White House press secretary stated openly that the White House was flagging posts and pages for Facebook to delete and deplatform. When Biden was asked by a reporter about it later that day to justify what they were doing to Facebook, Biden said it was justified because they were killing people. Over night, that apparently played badly–especially with the antitrust team over at the FTC, I’m sure. So the next day, Biden walked back his statement suggesting that Facebook was killing people and said that it wasn’t Facebook. It was 12 “individuals” on Facebook–they’re the ones who are killing people.

        Before the White House press secretary and Biden made those statements, you MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE could have made an argument about how Facebook was simply exercising their rights by censoring people’s posts and deplatforming them. Now that we know the White House is flagrantly telling Facebook which individuals to deplatform and which posts to delete, that argument is dead in the water.

        Facebook isn’t deplatforming those users of their own free will any more than the Hollywood studios were blacklisting actors, directors, and writers during the Red Scare. That happened against the backdrop of the antitrust suit against the studios, which eventually broke them up, and they submitted to the blacklists and begged for mercy.

        This is more or less the same thing–at least in terms of property rights of the studios not being the issue any more than it is with Facebook. Defending the Red Scare in terms of the studios right to exercise their property and association rights would be ridiculous, and so is defending what the Democrats are doing to Facebook with antitrust in the background now.

        1. Just of the record, . . .

          “The studio passed into the hands of Howard Hughes. Within weeks of taking over in May 1948, Hughes fired most of RKO’s employees and virtually shut the studio down for six months as he had the political sympathies of the rest investigated. Then, just as RKO swung back into production, Hughes made the decision to settle a long-standing federal antitrust suit against the industry’s Big Five studios. This was one of the crucial steps in the collapse of the studio system that had governed Hollywood for a quarter-century.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist#The_list_grows_(1948%E2%80%931950)

          And that’s when the blacklist really started.

        2. I would love to see Zuck grow a pair and court-shop for a judge to issue a cease and desist against the Office of the President for 1st amendment violations. One could argue that they’re “asking, not telling” but courts have issued rulings based on “chilling effect on free expression” before, not merely on direct censorship, and that’s what this is.

          1. They seem to be starting to fight back a little bit over the past week.

            First they insisted that Lina Khan recuse herself, and then they fought back against Biden’s statements against them–by accusing him of finger pointing to distract people away from his own failures.

            That may not seem like much, but it’s an about-face from where they were. They still want hate speech codes and the like via a consent decree (because that’s what their advertisers want), but not at the expense of being broken up or scapegoated.

            They were more or less on the same side until the moment Biden appointed Lina Khan to the FTC and made her chair. If Facebook and the White House were working together before, they don’t seem to be working together now.

            1. They’re figuring out that loyalty to the Party doesn’t mean the Party is loyal to you.

              1. First against the wall.

          2. The problem here is that it isn’t clear to me that facebook, and Zuck specifically, care to disagree with the government. In return for submitting to the government’s control of certain types of information, Facebook pretty much cements itself in place as the de factor social media platform. And platform that doesn’t expend enormous money reigning in non-government-approved speech will face deplatforming.

            1. I think things changed when Biden appointed Lina Khan to the chair the FTC. Yes, Facebook (Zuck) wants speech codes–because that’s what the advertisers want–but not at the expense of forcing Facebook to divest itself of Instagram and WhatsApp. Sending Lina Khan to the FTC and making her the chair meant that the Biden administration was serious about breaking Facebook up into three different companies.

              And that changes things.

              Yesterday we were comparing it to Game of Thrones, when Little Finger suddenly found himself on trial for treason–when he thought he was there to try Arya. This wasn’t the way things were supposed to go down. The Biden administration forgot to tell Zuck that they were serious about breaking his company apart–and severely restricting their ability to make acquisitions in the future.

    2. “He blames the 12 individuals”

      Are these the same 12 who were solely responsible for the 2016 Russian Election Disinformation campaign?

      Those guys must be fucking awesome!

      1. Yes, if it wasn’t for those 12 individuals, everyone would just do whatever the Biden administration tells them.

        1. P.S. I remember when the reason I didn’t want my future paychecks going to bail out Wall Street investors was because of the Koch brothers. If it hadn’t been for them, I’d be perfectly happy to give Wall Street my hard earned money, and I’d have been happy to do whatever else the Obama administration told me to do, too.

  6. They know Faceplant isn’t responsible, but they’re not going to blame themselves.

    1. Isn’t it possible that no one is to “blame” for the slow acceptance of the vaccines because a cautious, “wait and see” attitude toward these experimental and unapproved drugs is reasonable given the very low risk of serious illness or death from the virus for most people?

      1. That is not a correct assessment of the risks. Both the drug and the virus are new. The virus does exponentially more harm than the drug, which protects against the virus. There would have to be much more demonstrated risk from the drug for there to be any rational argument for preferring to take your chances with the virus.

        1. The virus does exponentially more harm than the drug

          Only if you are obese and over 65.

          350 children have died from Covid related complications, most of them had multiple comorbidities and were generally unhealthy.

          Heart issues that generally appear in children at a 1 in 100k rate have increased to 1 in 4000 with the shot in experimental trials.

          So as usual, you are wrong.

          Most people I know who got the 2nd shot had far worse symptoms/down time than those I know who got Covid.

          1. And how many have died from the vaccine?

            You think I’m gonna let you get away with the argument, essentially that the obese and elderly are expendable so that you can prance around playing amateur epidemiologist like everyone’s retarded uncle?

            You not getting vaccinated means the old and obese are not protected from the herd immunity that the vaccine is meant to eventually achieve. You’re not making a rational assessment of your own risks, but even if you are, you’re saying that you get to choose for the entire world that millions of people get to die for your arrogance and stupidity.

            It must be a pathological thing with people who drift toward libertarianism. The fundamental lack of an ability to appreciate that other people exist and can be harmed even by your passivity.

            1. You used the word exponentially. Some of the children now have lifetime ailments dummy.

              https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/coronavirus/covid-vaccine/mom-of-conn-teen-speaks-after-son-suffers-heart-condition-days-after-covid-19-vaccine/2495057/

              300 kids dying “with” and not “of” that had already medically critical comorbidities is not a high risk. Yet you are calling to put otherwise healthy children at risk for what reason? The lives of those near death are more important than normally healthy people? That is idiotic which is par for the course for you.

              You not getting vaccinated means the old and obese are not protected from the herd immunity that the vaccine is meant to eventually achieve.

              They are already vaccinated at 90%. I don’t interact with that community. Oh and I’m vaccinated. But the fact is that at risk group IS THE GROUP that should be concerned with vaccinations, not normally healthy kids.

              It must be a pathological thing with people who drift toward libertarianism. The fundamental lack of an ability to appreciate that other people exist and can be harmed even by your passivity.

              Again, you are the pathalogical one who believes life should be risk free even if it means government forcing us all to do exactly what they want us to do. You trade liberty for false security. You’re an authoritarian.

              1. Nobody promised you a risk-free vaccine. A 95% efficacy means it’s not going to work for 5%. There will be some side effects in rare cases. Biology is complicated, and people are different.

                That doesn’t mean that we can’t vaccinate against a deadly disease currently disrupting the entire world order until there is 100% certainty that the vaccine will not harm anyone in any way.

                Life is about choices, not certainties. Out of two options, you are choosing the riskier one out of a pure misunderstanding of facts and a stubborn insistence on stupidity.

                1. Except it’s not that deadly, the “disruption” (see violation of liberty and destruction of lives) was manufactured to transfer wealth and power, and you don’t have the right to force me to take risks to make you feel safe. Fuck off.

                  1. But Tony supports that forced transfer of wealth and power because he’s a fascist.

                  2. Except it’s not that deadly

                    600,000 dead Americans and 4 million and counting around the world say otherwise. My mother is 69 years old. Had she gotten COVID prior to being vaccinated, she’d have had around a 5% chance of dying from it. My own chances of dying wouldn’t have been insignificant either. How about yours? Your parents, siblings (if you have any), friends, coworkers, other people you care about? Are you going to dismiss all of that death as no big deal?

                    …you don’t have the right to force me to take risks to make you feel safe…

                    Except that law and history say otherwise. Children have been required to be vaccinated against measles, mumps, and rubella, polio, and other diseases in order to attend public schools for decades. I’m not sure, but traveling abroad usually requires vaccinations, doesn’t it? And how many young American men died fighting ‘global communism’ in Korea and Vietnam regardless of what they wanted or how much it actually made America safe? (Well, that is, unless wealthy and/or connected parents could get them out of it, such as having a doctor living in one of their father’s buildings to diagnose them with bone spurs, or be able to fly in the National Guard instead of being drafted into combat, or be lucky enough to stay in college and law school throughout their eligible years.) We haven’t had a draft since they ended it in the 70’s, but I registered for the Selective Service just in case it would be needed again, as required by law.

                    I think that most of the Founders wouldn’t have recognized this kind of freedom that the libertarians around Reason having been crying about during this public health crisis. I think that they well understood that freedom comes with responsibility. The idea that your right to swing your fist ends at someone else’s face isn’t the whole picture. They would have recognized that it was their responsibility not to swing their fist wildly around in the first place. Laws that restrict people’s freedoms are implemented when people behaving responsibly by their own choices are insufficient in number to protect innocent people.

                    Another saying is that if you choose to restrict liberty in order to have security, then you will not get or deserve either of them. But that is overstating the issue. We obviously do restrict liberty in the name of security all the time. Encouraging people to make wise choices so that we don’t have to be as restrictive is an important part of how we keep tyranny at bay. Remember all of those quotes from Founders about the Constitution requiring a moral people? This was what they meant. When enough of the people are well grounded in moral behavior, then it is easy to keep our liberties, because there will simply not be a demand for draconian restrictions. The biggest danger in democracy is a majority demanding that freedom be restricted in order to be safe. Good leadership then encourages people to voluntarily behave responsibly in order to keep the demand for government restrictions down.

                    If you want to keep your gun rights, then encourage responsible gun ownership rather than think that the “Block 19” was a funny way to own the libs. And if you want COVID restrictions lifted, then get vaccinated and encourage everyone else that you know to be vaccinated if they can be.

                2. Nobody promised you a risk free life. So fuck off.

                3. “Nobody promised you a risk-free vaccine..”

                  Nobody promised shitstain here that everyone would take it.
                  I heartily recommend shitstain get his nose out of everyone else’ business, fuck of and die.
                  Soon.

        2. That is not a correct assessment of the risks. The risk of serious illness from the virus is now known to be very low for most people. The risk from the mRNA drugs remains largely unknown, but already appears to be far greater than has been previously tolerated for new vaccines. There would have to be much more demonstrated risk from the virus for it to be clear that taking your chances with infection is not a more rational choice than taking a chance on the vaccines.

          1. How many millions have to die slow painful deaths before you acknowledge the risk of the virus?

            1. How many millions have to contract the virus and suffer no symptoms or very mild symptoms before you acknowledge that the risk is very low for most people?

              1. So a pandemic has to kill 51% of the earth’s population before you believe it’s a good idea to do anything about it?

                1. The data show that if everyone in the world were to contract the virus, we should expect about .3% to die. That’s assuming that none of them received effective treatment in time. Several effective treatments have been devised. We know who those who die are likely to be—the very old and/or chronically ill with certain conditions. These people can be protected. It is far from clear at this point that risking a vaccination is the better choice for most people. You’re an idiot.

                  1. You want people to be protected, just not with a vaccine. A vaccine that has so few problems that it’s basically a miracle of science. And based on trust that what you’ve been claiming can happen will eventually happen, but never has yet: somehow keeping the old and fat in quarantine for the rest of their lives, so that you don’t have to inconvenience yourself to any perceptible degree.

                    Tell me more about your brilliant macroeconomic ideas!

                    1. I couldn’t care less if other people choose to be vaccinated. That’s their business, and it’s up to them to assess the relative risks for themselves. It’s also up to high risk individuals to choose how to protect themselves in other ways, such as isolation. There are both costs and benefits to those measures, just as with the vaccines. Individuals should be free to weigh those costs and benefits for themselves and make their own decisions.

                    2. You have to get your vaccine in order for Tony’s vaccine to work! Moron.

                    3. One more reason not to get vaccinated.

                    4. A vaccine that has so few problems that it’s basically a miracle of science.

                      Tony apparently has a time machine and has visited Earth 2-5 years from now to observe what long-term effects these experimental injections might have — and found there were none. Say hi to Marty and Doc for me!

                2. COVID wasn’t a pandemic. Spanish flu was a pandemic. This was just a really bad cold. When there’s an actual pandemic that actually kills young, healthy people instead of the average age of death being 72, then we can have a conversation about what kinds of economic disruption might be legitimate.

                  The entire response to COVID was tyrannical bullshit. What saddens me the most is how most people didn’t question it. They just accepted it. And anyone who did question is was shut down and marginalized. Granted lots of those questioning the lockdowns were indeed nutjobs, that doesn’t mean questioning the government restrictions was nutty.

                  1. Today I saw an old man walking down the sidewalk with a mask, in 85 degree heat and 75% humidity. I don’t know how the poor guy was able to breathe. He’s a sad soul that has accepted all the bullshit fed to him by tyrants and their sycophants. People like you.

                    1. It’s depressing.

                    2. It broke that black libertarian lump in my chest for most of a millisecond.

                3. “So a pandemic has to kill 51% of the earth’s population before you believe it’s a good idea to do anything about it?”

                  Shitstain here is really stupid about a lot of things, and about as honest as the average politician, so when he bullshits about a disease with a death rate of 1/3 of 1%, if becomes 51%.
                  And this stupid sumbitch expects to be mistaken for an adult!

            2. How many of those people did Vernon infect? Names and dates please. Thanks.

              1. He’s infecting the internet with basic bitch stupidity right now.

                I really expect a more sophisticated style of stupidity than vaccine denial. Any dumb bitch Karen can do that.

                1. What is “vaccine denial”?

                  1. A particular brand of conspiracy theory that preys on the tendency of the human mind to fear things it doesn’t understand in fucked up and harmful ways.

                    It’s always more rational to fear polio, the flu, smallpox, etc., than it is to fear the vaccines for these things. But because the illness is a theoretical thing in the future, and the vaccine is a shot in the arm, the brain has to be coaxed to understand the actual relative risk.

                    We evolved in an environment where vaccines weren’t a thing, and all the threats were visible at macroscopic levels. TBH we’ve done pretty well considering our limitations.

                    1. Unresponsive.

                    2. If you’re that scared then stay inside for the rest of your life. I know most of us will be thankful.

                  2. Whenever some variant of the word “denier” is used, it’s to compare the person to someone who says the Holocaust never happened.

                    The implication is that they’re stupid, ignorant, hateful, have incorrect politics, are ignorant of history, and otherwise best dropped off at a reeducation camp.

                    And their brains are wired wrong. Literally. The other day Tony was saying political differences are biological. Of course he denied the next step. Yes, I used the word “deny” because the next step is obvious.

                    But Tony would never admit that that’s what he wants to do to anyone who disagrees with his politics. Well, maybe he does to his friends. But not us.

                    Very ironic that he compares those who disagree with him with Holocaust deniers, while also explaining political differences in the language of eugenics which was used to justify the Holocaust.

                    1. Tony would never admit that

                      On the contrary, he’s been very clear lately about his fascism.

                    2. Then I haven’t been paying close attention.

                      I’m not going to start either.

                    3. Yeah, so the fact that humans are biological is not the beginning of a slippery slope to the Holocaust. Perversions of science is what the fascists do, but that doesn’t mean science is inherently fascistic.

                      There have been famous studies that show conservatives have a higher disgust response. Of course, there is no gene for being a Republican, and our psychological differences may be informed by genes or they may be informed by culture or a combination.

                      I think I’m wired to be a bit conservative. I’m a compulsive hand washer, and other people often evoke a disgust reaction in me. But I have faith in the problem-solving mind to overcome these instincts. That’s what it’s there for.

                    4. Yeah, so the fact that humans are biological is not the beginning of a slippery slope to the Holocaust.

                      When you Tony start citing biology as something that makes you physically different from (and presumably superior to) those who differ with you politically, they yes that is something that can quite easily become a slippery slope to mass murder.

                      How many millions were killed by governments in the 20th Century by people who may have honestly believed they were doing good? Most believe they are doing good. Even tyrants. They don’t wake up and say to themselves “What’s the most evil thing I can do today?” No. They think “How can I make society better? What about those biologically inferiors with incorrect politics. Hmm. Society would be better without them! Kill them all! For the greater good!” And with a clean conscience they kill millions.

                  3. “What is “vaccine denial”?”

                    Shitstain’s attempt to add more bullshit to out lives.

                2. What is “basic bitch stupidity?”
                  If he is infecting the internet, call Biden to censor the Reason comments section.

            3. Keep shilling for the statists you piece of crap.

            4. How many millions have to die slow painful deaths before you acknowledge the risk of the virus?

              Why don’t you actually examine the data instead of ape what you hear on CNN and MSNBC? Here’s a two-minute dose of truth (logic, math, statistics, etc) that might inoculate you against that panic bullshit:

              https://www.bitchute.com/video/bCMPSBJoOtjE/

          2. The risk from the mRNA drugs remains largely unknown…

            Hundreds of millions of doses have been given around the world. Out of over 300 million doses given in the U.S. as of July 19, 12,313 deaths were reported to VAERS of people that had been vaccinated within the weeks prior to their death. That’s 0.0036% and is only correlation. VAERS requires anyone that dies after recently getting a vaccine to be reported, regardless of whether there is any evidence that the vaccine had anything to do with the death. As far as I know, not one of those deaths was ever confirmed to have been caused by the vaccine. Serious side effects in general are also very rare. Anaphylaxis occurs in 2-5 people per million vaccinated, and that is treatable. Blood clots (rare in the Johnson&Johnson vaccine, and practically non-existent in the mRNA vaccines), low platelet counts, and heart inflamation are all rare conditions as well, with numbers in the hundreds compared to the millions of doses.

            The risk of vaccination is truly minuscule compared to the risks of having COVID. Statistically and scientifically, there is simply no comparison.

            I remember when seat belt laws were first implemented in the 80’s. Some people were against it, saying that a seat belt could trap them in a burning car, or one that was sinking in a pond or something. They should be able to make the choice themselves. But was that a rational fear? The chances of cars catching fire after an accident or being submerged in water were so low, that it was not a rational fear to compare those situations to the fact that seat belts would save lives in virtually any serious car crash. Not to mention that people found ways to market to that tiny risk with tools to keep in your car that could quickly cut a seat belt, just like they have tools to break your window if the car is fully submerged and the pressure prevents you from opening the door.

        3. Bullshit. I had Covid. I’m pretty healthy, with none of the co-morbidities. My symptoms were like a minor head cold, and I slept a lot for a week. There’s no reason for me to be part of this experiment.

      2. Yes. See the Flu vaccine usage rate, usually under 40%.

        The vast majority of people are at very little risk from Covid as they are from the Flu.

        But states can’t implement authoritarianism without fear. So Democrats utilize the irrational fear of the left to pass their goals.

  7. That social media companies are in bed with democrats and far left thugs is already known. They have helped instigate social corrosion and must be taken down for that reason. Their execs are treasonous in that regard.

    As for Biden well he’s fucking demented, can barely carry on a conversation, clearly is reading words others have written except when he goes off track then you know he’s got brain problems, and frankly who cares because they’ve demonstrated they have no power over Congress. I am less worried today than six months ago.

    But social media as promulgated today is wrong and is causing massive problems in society. It is being used to overthrow the government and replace it with neo marxists who really will try to end the Constitution for good. Because they are organizing over social media, those companies are culpable.

    1. Yes but what are you going to do about it? Currently, the only efforts I can see are short sided attempts to get government into the Social Media business- defining what is fair and what is true. And that is only going to cement these companies in their spot, and earn you and prevent potential competitors from making a go of it.

  8. “The Biden administration’s latest threats should disabuse Republicans of their anti-230 notions once and for all. The White House wants Facebook to proactively censor more content, and views Section 230 as an obstacle getting in the way of that goal.”

    —-Robby Soave

    This is an excellent point. I would add to it.

    Those of you who agree that common carrier is an appropriate libertarian and capitalist solution here should note that just as common carrier obligations arise naturally from a monopoly, so do protections from liability arise naturally from common carrier obligations.

    “Common carriers are typically required to allow open access to their services without restricting supply or discriminating among customers and in return are allowed to operate as monopolies and given protection from liability for potential misuse by customers.

    —-Investopedia

    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/natural_monopoly.asp

    You can’t insist, on the one hand, that a platform treats all speech the same in regards to accuracy or inaccuracy, and, on the other hand, hold them liable for not discriminating against defamatory statements by users.

    . . . unless you’re one of my ex-girlfriends. They used to make demands like that all the time.

    1. Only Biden and team D are looking to generally hold these platforms liable for the actions of their user base. The R limitations are aimed at the actions these companies choose to undertake. That fascists like Robby refuse to see that or make the distinction is telling.

      I’d be fine with leaving these anti-liberty companies behind if I could and still be generally connected, but they throw their weight against leaving their platforms to such a degree you’d have to create your own integrated economy all at once to escape their competition suppressing actions.

      1. The legitimate purpose of Section 230 is to protect online platforms from liability for the defamatory statements made by users. Making online platforms liable for the defamatory statements made by users on social media may not be the primary objective of Republicans who want to repeal Section 230, but it would be a consequence of repealing Section 230 whether that’s the Republican’ primary objective or not.

        1. This. And I’d add, never forget the feds end game is the end of encryption as we know it. If you give them leverage over these companies then they will use it to destroy our personal protections in the name of protecting the people.

          1. This. And I’d add, never forget the feds end game is the end of encryption as we know it.

            The “legitimate” purpose of S230 has nothing to do with encryption and the assertion only makes sense if you acknowledge S230 is a false flag or stalking horse.

            If I lose a hundred customers and bump into one on the street and ask why and they say, “You know, the kid-diddling.” The issue is the defamation (and the resulting losses), regardless of the encryption.

            The only way it’s an encryption issue is if you assume that it’s Congress’s job to protect businesses from the free speech of their contributors and customers.

            1. At this point, social media companies have become basically publishers who crowd source their content.

        2. Not true Ken. Billboard operators are not liable for graffiti, etc. They would return to normal protections which does include defamatory statements from other users.

          What 230 has done in actuality is shield these companies from contractual issues and their own inclusion of speech that could be defamatory, such as Twitter calling the Hunter Biden Laptop repairman a hacker.

          1. “Not true Ken. Billboard operators are not liable for graffiti, etc.”

            Is the graffiti defamatory?

            And the problem being sued for liability isn’t just being found guilty. It’s being sued at all. Being sued by thousands of people every year and wining isn’t a profitable activity, and it’s time consuming. You could go broke winning lawsuit after lawsuit. Section 230 prevents social media companies from having defend themselves in court for things like defamatory graffiti on a billboard–they couldn’t possibly be liable for because they didn’t write it.

            1. Courts are free to dismiss with prejudice. Someone could accuse you tomorrow of defamation. You’d have to go to court to dismiss it. Why should you have less rights than Silicon Valley?

              1. I maintain that if the government requires social media companies to treat inaccurate and accurate speech the same–because they’re a common carrier–that the government can’t both require them to leave inaccurate speech alone on their platform and also subject them to legal liability for doing so.

                They also can’t both require you to drive between 50 mph and 60 mph and fine you for driving between 50 mph and 60 mph.

                Are you or are you not denying that liability protections arise from common carrier obligations–just like common carrier obligations arise from natural monopolies?

                If you are, then you’re ultimately refusing to tolerate the conditions under which a common carrier solution would be possible. You seem to be have become so obsessed with rationalizing the repeal of Section 230, that you don’t even consider the consequences of doing so anymore.

                1. P.S. Forcing people to appear in court to answer charges when the plaintiff doesn’t even allege they’re the guilty party is ridiculous, and it doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about Silicon Valley and comments on social media platforms, gun manufacturers and mass shooters, or breweries and drunk drivers. None of these industries could stay in business if they had to constantly fend off thousands of harassment lawsuits for things they aren’t even alleged to have done.

                  I can think of huge businesses off the top of my head that ended up in bankruptcy and largely being owned by the plaintiff’s attorneys who sued them in class actions, and in one of those cases (Dow Corning for breast implants), it wasn’t clear that their breast implants ever caused cancer in anyone.

                  If Dow Corning had made bad breast implants do you think the surgeons who installed them should be liable? What about the medical supply companies that distributed them? What about the newspapers that advertised the surgeries? If you want to sue somebody for what Dow Corning did, I think you should sue Dow Corning, and, yeah, I think the same principle applies to Ken Shultz. If Ken Shultz kills purposely runs over your poodle with a motorcycle made by Yamaha, don’t sue Yamaha. Sue Ken Shultz.

                2. “the government can’t both require them to leave inaccurate speech alone on their platform and also subject them to legal liability for doing so.”

                  This is a strawman – nobody is advocating for that.
                  The current status quo is the exact opposite: social media companies are picking and choosing what to broadcast/publish and protected from livability/responsibility for those choices.
                  If a media entity is taking submissions and picking some to publish on their medium and others that they will remove or not allow on that same medium, how does it not become the media entity’s speech?
                  They’ve explicitly and deliberately endorsed the speech that they broadcast, as shown by the fact that they do choose what content remains and what content is erased.
                  From a pure logic standpoint, they are publishers.

                  1. *liability/responsibility

                  2. “This is a strawman – nobody is advocating for that.”

                    My point is that if you want both common carrier and no liability protections for tolerating inaccurate speech, those are the consequences of what you’re advocating whether you want them or not.

                    1. Then you’re making an irrelevant point. Liability protection comes with being a common carrier. Liability comes with being a selective distributor.

                      And you leave completely unaddressed that a publisher/broadcater/distributer picking and choosing submissions to post or delete makes those posts that remain the speech of the publisher/broadcaster/distributer

          2. This is incorrect. Section 230 says nothing about posts and speech created by Twitter, only about its liability for non-employee (i.e. user-generated) speech.

            And comparing platforms, where users are encouraged to create content as a main function of the service, to vandals defacing a billboard is silly. We know specifically that 230 was created to head off lawsuits that were trying to hold platforms accountable for moderating (or failing to moderate) content. We know this because the framers of the legislation are on record saying so.

            1. You are ignoring the actual application of 230 in the courts in California from the text. These courts protected Twitter against Meagan Murphy’s lawsuit against contract violations under 230, despite that not being part of 230.

              Application does not always match description.

              The defamation case cited is ongoing, want to take bets if Twitter gets it moved to California as they are trying to do?

              https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/02/19/censored-hunter-biden-laptop-story-comes-back-around-to-bite-twitter-n1426849

              1. IF IF IF the courts are misinterpreting something, the solution isn’t to remove appropriate restrictions on liability and let innocent companies get hit with what may turn into class action lawsuits–because of things that were written on their platform by third parties.

                The solution is to appeal that ruling, overturn it, or address it in further legislation.

                There is legislation that protects the gun manufacturers from liability for crimes perpetrated with guns they manufactured. If that law were misinterpreted so that the CEO of one of these gun manufacturers couldn’t be tried for murdering his wife, the solution would not be to make gun manufacturers liable for crimes they didn’t commit.

            2. From what I see opponents of Section 230 would shut down all speech on the internet, including their own, if it meant silencing their political foes.

              “My face has been really mean lately! Know what would really make it mad? Cutting off my nose! That’s it! The nose is gonna go! Ha ha face! I’ll show you!”

              1. But you’re a blond idiot.

                The internet was a wasteland until 230 saved it. Dumbest the ever.

            3. “We know this because the framers of the legislation are on record saying so.”

              Uh oh, wait til they apply such reasoning to birthright citizenship…

      2. One thing I’ve learned from these comments is that when someone says “Blah blah blah is telling” there is a one hundred percent chance that they’re completely full of shit.

        1. So if they say “Blah blah blah is (not very) telling“, there’s a zero percent chance they’re full of shit?

          (Not really) Asking for a friend.

          1. Your friend is dumb.

            1. And you’re disagreeing with him when he uses your own logic.

              1. It usually follows the format of “So-and-so didn’t say xyz about such and such. That is very telling.” What follows is invariably a strawman combined with switching the burden of proof before the strawman is dispatched with prejudice. It’s why I muted JesseAz, R Mac, and Mother’s Lament.

                “You didn’t denounce the rioters enough! That is very telling! Means you support them! Prove you didn’t! You can’t! That means you did! Rioter!”

                “You don’t say enough bad things about Democrats! That is telling! Means you voted for Biden! Prove you didn’t! You can’t! That means you did! Damn dirty Democrat!”

                “You said mean things about the peaceful demonstrators at the Capital on January 6! That’s telling! Means you supports Antifa! Prove you don’t! You can’t! That means you did! Antifa scum!”

                Not sure how your 3:19 comment relates to that. Were you trying to do a De Morgan?

                1. LOL. Again, you’re lying. I directly quoted you. You claimed you never said things.

                  People pointing out that you go into threads to just crap all over them happens all the time, because it is what you do.

                  The fact is that in a thread where even Reason is criticizing Biden you do exactly what Jeff does, you rush in to attack conservatives. This is after spending months yelling whataboutism when people brought up the summer riots after Jan 6th.

                  You’re just pathetic man. You mute people that can easily attack your infantile statements. Why you also muted Ken.

                2. And you talking about strawmen?!?!? That’s all you do.

                  Just pathetic.

                  1. The funny thing is, he didn’t know what a strawman was, and I had to explain it too him.
                    I’m still not sure that he really understands…

                3. Sarcasmic is making his daily mute list announcement I see, and lying about Jesse, etc. as usual.

                  Anyway, we all know what he really wants:

                  *Ahem*
                  Here’s you’re attention, sarcasmic! Enjoy!

              2. I see a reply from an afore mentioned troll. I wonder. Did he furiously google De Morgan and try to educate himself in logic to make some stupid insult, did he…. aw fuck it. If I cared I’d read his bullshit.

                1. How cute, you are too dumb to read a comment and show how wrong you are.

                  I do love how you think quoting a common name makes you smart. Generally people do this when they don’t have an actual intellectual argument to make on their own. It was one of the most famous scenes in Goodwill Hunting. The problem is you are far less educated than even the Harvard students in that scene and just throw out names without understanding full context or meaning.

                  One of your other flaws.

                  The fact that you are in denial about your own behaviors despite so many people here pointing them out to you is simply the icing.

      3. The fact that you’ve never denounced the Albanian genocide is very telling. I’ll bet that just yesterday you used your time machine to go back there and kill a hundred women and children. Prove you didn’t. Huh? You can’t. That makes you a murdering fascist.

        See? Anyone can do it!

        1. Ahh, Sarcasmic is back to this idiotic argument.

          If Ken refused to denounce Albanian genocide in a thread on genocide where he was instead attacking a completely different party while ignoring the genocide…. then you’d actually get to the issue at hand.

          You use this to deny your own actions. For example. In a thread on schooling about 2 weeks ago, you didn’t attack the actual topic of the thread, which was the Biden administrations foray into more authoritarian schooling issues… instead you attacked No Child Left behind as the cause. Your entire motive was to distract away from Biden and the issues of his actions (the topic of the article) and instead point to those evil conservatives.

          You are so full of it and honestly you know it.

    2. This is an excellent point. I would add to it.

      No it’s not. It was made by someone who works for Reason which means it’s pro-Biden and anti-Trump.

      1. That poor strawman has been dead for months now, give it a rest.

        1. Oh come on. Everything people say is judged not by what they actually said, but by their politics. Policies are judged by the Party, not the policy. Facts are judged by the source, not the facts.

          That’s not a strawman. It’s the sad truth.

          1. So self unaware. You lie constantly about what you said or what your arguments are, even if given direct links. When you are so wrong that you can’t defend it, you claim sarcasm even when there is no remote way it is actually sarcasm.

            Ironic that you talk about judging people by their politics as the vast majority of your posts are hyperbolic strawmen arguments against the right and you called dozens of people here trump cultists for the last few years.

            Try sobriety man, you truly need it.

    3. This is an excellent point.

      I disagree. Biden himself may be, but I don’t think the administration, to the last man, is this stupid. S230 isn’t an impediment, it’s a stalking horse.

    4. The monopoly status of the big social media platforms is de facto, and always will be. Facebook is the 800-pound gorilla because such a platform is useless unless it’s the one everyone is on. (That’s how the Bell system became the monopoly phone company—phones on smaller systems became useless, even though it was technically possible for someone else to start a phone company.) Even if Facebook goes out of style and some other platform becomes the Big Cheese, there will still be only one that everyone HAS to be on for it to be fully useful. Monopolization is just the nature of this beast, so concern about the law contributing to creating a monopoly is misplaced.

      If Facebook were to be considered a common carrier relieved of responsibility for the content of posts, then the posters of defamatory content would still be liable for it, as always.

      1. This is an incorrect reading of history. The Bell system monopoly was completely due to IP law. When the Bell patent on phones expired in 1894, a plethora of independent phone operators sprung up around the country. By early 1900, there were more independent phone customers than Bell System customers.

        In 1907, Vail took control of AT&T and began buying up competitors. He then cut several deals with the government to limit competition. His plan was actually broadcast in their marketing materials, “One Policy, One System, Universal Service”. The plan was right there- in return for “guaranteeing” universal service to the country, governments would pursue a policy of encouraging a single, interconnected system. This ultimately benefited AT&T.

        Just as competition was democratizing the Bell System, Government swooped in and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. And the government looks poised to do that again.

        1. Version 1 of the “universal broadband access” scam.

        2. But the only way to have universal service with the technology of the time was to have everyone on the same system. As I said, the monopoly was necessary.

  9. If “government” (whoever that is) wants to get people vaccinated, then the CDC or FDA or House Dem. Caucus etc. should post a running list of names of officials, employee and members who have been vaccinated, along with a tally of the numbers of those vaccinated along side the total population size of that group. Let people see if they are as good as their chatter. No BS about privacy, if they are all so gung-ho that this is for a good cause, they ought to be able to publicly lead by example.

  10. I mean, remember when the media gleefully destroyed its credibility during the Trump years?

    And when a bunch of public health officials threw theirs on the pyre during the protest/riots?

    They are reaping what they sowed. Terrible thing to not have credibility when you really need it.

    1. The endgame of the boy who cried “wolf”.

      1. The non-birthing underage person that cried wolf.

    2. Remember when Republicans threw away all of their credibility during the Trump years?

      1. In all fairness, Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Liz Cheney, Lindsey Graham, and Justin Amash were shedding credibility before Trump got elected.

      2. sarcasmic
        July.20.2021 at 3:34 pm
        Flag Comment Mute User
        Oh come on. Everything people say is judged not by what they actually said, but by their politics.

        Point proven.

      3. Sure. When nobody has credibility then there’s no source of good advice.

        1. When you can’t trust anybody then it’s time to trust yourself.

          1. When your daughter has been raised to key cars stop trusting yourself.

  11. The Biden Administration has determined that the plebs talking among themselves instead of believing the official government line is unacceptable.

    There is also the strange idea by the federal government that 100% vaccination rate is both necessary and achievable, and that people do not have well thought out reasons for not getting vaxxed.

  12. “Knowing that it is a crime to lie to Congress…do you wish to retract your May 11 claim that the NIH never funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan?” Paul asked Fauci.

    Get that son of a bitch!

    1. It is a rhetorical trick though.

      “Knowing that having sex with animals is a crime punishable with imprisonment do you wish to retract your claim that you are not a goat fucker?”

      1. Of course, fucking a goat and then saying you didn’t fuck a goat is also a rhetorical trick.

        At the end of the day, one person fucked a goat and the other is just trying to find out who’s responsible for a disease that killed millions of people worldwide.

        1. In a nanny state goat fucking is acceptable.

        2. If you ask me if I fucked a goat and I give a yes or no answer it is a straight answer. True or not. It is now up to you to provide convincing evidence one way or the other.

          Paul’s question is rhetoric because it leads the listener to an impression that Fauci committed a crime by lying to congress. He has already answered the question. Paul knows very well that Fauci knows about testimony to congress.

          1. And we know very well the facts that NIH funded gain of function research and that Fauci testified to congress that NIH did not fund gain of function research.
            No amount of bullshit and attempts to deflect responsibility from your masters can change what we’ve seen and heard for ourselves.

            1. Echo is just putting some spin on it. See what I did there?

              1. It’s what he/him does, and always to the left

      2. Well I didn’t quote his entire line of questioning, that was just Rand’s opening jab.

      3. He quoted Fauci’s prior statement and cited a direct study showing NIH funding… how is that a rhetorical trick?

        1. Because it is misleading. He quotes Fauci saying “no” in answer to a question under testimony. He then demonstrates that NIH gave a grant to Ecohealth which paid the lab in Wuhan China 600 grand (a paltry sum) for something work they did. I have no idea what exactly. Not nearly enough for what is claimed.

          There is zero evidence that the small grant went to manufacture a lethal virus. The claim is unsubstantiated.

          Then he sums that up to a misleading question. What do you call that in law?

          I like Rand Paul. He is doing politics here.

          Interesting that the first person to see a unique disease pattern which led to a diagnosis was also an ophthalmologist. Li Wenliang, MD young doctor from China who saw an unusual disease and began to report on it. The government tried to shut him down. He died from it at the age of 33.

          1. You’re pathetic, unworthy of life, and talentless.
            Pretentiousness and servility aren’t adequate compensation.

          2. It does not matter if the grant went specifically to manufacturing that particular virus. The salient point here is that funding the lab that specialized in gain of function research on bat coronaviruses was a terrible (if not potentially illegal) thing to have done on the part of a US agency. It’s irrelevant if the money was handed to the lab directly or if it covered all expenses. Stop obfuscating.

    2. Did you notice the goal post move by Fauci today?

      He stated today that the funding that went to gain of function research didn’t go tot he gain of function research for COVID, just other diseases at Wuhan.

      1. “Okay, so we’re guilty of funding research into making viruses more dangerous at a shoddy Chinese lab. But it wasn’t THIS virus!”

  13. Remember kids: Your private property rights end where my FREEDOM begins!

    1. Your “private property” rights become dubious when you annex your business to the government.

  14. Oh anti vaxxers and cranks have been around long before Facebook. They really need to leave this alone.

  15. Christ, what an asshole.

  16. Meh… I use the tried and true formula. When conservatives cry for regulation of Twitter and FB it’s for free speech. When Biden does it, it’s because he’s a secret communist despot squirrel.

    1. Pay your mortgage.

  17. Personally I think the odds are that the virus is naturally occurring. I also find it very plausible that that the NIH did not fund gain of function research.

    There is no proof of anything so it is all speculation and you can’t rule anything out. Virologists are not in agreement either.

    One line of logic I saw was that Covid is highly contagious in minks and similar animals. So perhaps that is where to look but you may not ever find it.

    Coronavirus mutates. There are already thousands of known mutations in just over a year.

    1. Personally I think the odds are that the virus is naturally occurring.

      You’ve consistently proven your grasp of even basic science to be so poor that this statement lends credence to its opposite.

      Virologists are not in agreement either.

      Case in point, consensus isn’t proof and, moreover, you’re ignoring the fact that there is actual proof that gain of function research was being done, that there was a leak, and that there was a concerted effort to disinform people/cover it up.

      Your the version of Dirty Harry that sees a naked man chasing a woman in the street with a butcher knife and assumes he’s out collecting for the Red Cross.

      1. I specifically said that there was no consensus as to the origin of the virus. No definitive conclusion can be made. Sure if it existed it is not proof but at this point we do not have even that.

        I gave my opinion as to what is most likely. That does not prove anything either. It is the hypothesis I find most likely. I have given my reasons for that before and I will not repeat them.

        You have your mind made up so there is no convincing here.

        1. No definitive conclusion can be made, but one based on probability certainly can be — and it doesn’t favor your zoonotic narrative. If you have the patience, read this detailed analysis of the two competing theories: https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038. You may find a natural-origin hypothesis to be most likely, but that is not what a dispassionate assessment of the data would support.

    2. I also find it very plausible that that the NIH did not fund gain of function research.” Except for all the paper work that says they did.

      1. Marley didn’t shoot the deputy, ergo, innocent!

        1. We named the copier here Marley because it always be jammin man.

      2. Ok Ron show it to me.

    3. I also find it very plausible that that the NIH did not fund gain of function research.

      There is direct evidence they did.

      https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/health-watchdog-investigates-nih-grants-wuhan-lab

      I mean at this point you’re either an idiot or simply defending the left.

      Personally I think the odds are that the virus is naturally occurring.

      Based on your denial of the facts that have come out in the last few months?

      One line of logic I saw was that Covid is highly contagious in minks and similar animals.

      Citation?

      1. Sure.

        https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01652176.2020.1867776

        Is it proof of the hypothesis that minks and similar animals are the intermediary? No but it is a reasonable hypothesis. Humans and minks have a lot of contact.

        “Based on your denial of facts”

        Which facts have I denied?

        “ I mean at this point you’re either an idiot or simply defending the left.”

        Ah there you go. I could not care less about the left or right. Calling me an idiot does not help you at all.

        Your link to the news article provides no direct evidence of such funding for gain of function research in Wuhan China. None.

        1. All the known facts about the origin of the virus indicate the lab as the source.
          You can try explain away each fact individually as indicative of something other than lab leak, however less likely it may be, but taken together your hypothesis against lab leak is untenable.
          Likewise, you can defend individual posts in isolation as showing no concern for left or right, but taken together they clearly demonstrate that you’re a little leftist simp.
          Incompetently dissembling doesn’t help you at all.

  18. Can we pool our money and buy a Hunter masterpiece. They’ll be worth billions one day. Probably next week.

    1. A loaf of bread could cost billions soon.

  19. My hunch is that this is a temporary phenomenon. Alternatively, it could be the end of the species. But I choose to be optimistic.

    QAnon and the other crap is what happens when boomers figure out how to use the internets. We weren’t around to teach them right from wrong, to explain that a Nigerian prince isn’t actually reaching out to them personally. The internet without a sense of reliable sources is a cesspit of nonsense. And it’s no easy task to explain to grown adults what some of us struggled to learn in freshman English class.

    And perhaps the defining characteristic of these people is their grasping need to hand their lives over to simple narratives and higher powers. It’s surely no coincidence that the evangelicals are the same people who were so fucking gullible they could fall for literally the most obvious grifter in the universe and treat him as
    a president.

    It’s not about facts or sources, it’s about tribe and the comfort of certainty. There are no amount of tax cuts you could give certain people that will persuade them to give up their certainty and the security blanket of an authority figure.

    That these people might feel like natural allies of libertarian radical individualists is, of course, bizarre. But I’ve only met a vanishingly few actual libertarians who could truly contemplate living in a world where there was maximum freedom for other people beside themselves. Most of you think quasi-anarchy is perfectly compatible with the unquestioned dominance of white Christian culture, not to mention laissez-faire economic theory. Good luck with that.

    1. Tony as usual spreading his ass to shower us with disinformation.

    2. “And perhaps the defining characteristic of these people is their grasping need to hand their lives over to simple narratives and higher powers.”

      Im not exactly sure who that sounds like, but I bet they hate individualism.

    3. “And perhaps the defining characteristic of these people is their grasping need to hand their lives over to simple narratives and higher powers”

      @Tony doesn’t seem to be very self aware..

      Seriously, in all the time I have been reading Reason and the comments Tony, your quote fits you to a “T”..

    4. It’s not about facts or sources, it’s about tribe and the comfort of certainty.

      Hilarious words out of the mouth of a collectivist. Some damn good theater. Thanks Tony!

  20. Goddamed, I’m so sick of seeing this dementia patient wearing those Ray Bans.

    You’re not Maverick you demented old fuck!

    1. Hillary’s blue anti-seizure lenses were much more stylin’.

    2. I have a pair I bought in the 70s; now all I see is that fool wearing them.

      1. have some Ferrari glasses from the 80s … they folded in half and were all the rage of the Jersey shore set lol

    3. Goddamed, I’m so sick of seeing this dementia patient wearing those Ray Bans.

      At least McCain had the street credit to back them up.

    4. Highway to the slumber zone

    5. It’s so the flashing lights don’t cause a dementia rage.

      1. Is that like when Nardz has a Twitter rage?

    6. He’s wearing aviators.

      Wayfarers are still cool.

    7. They make his face look like death. No eyes, just big black holes right where his eye sockets are, leading into his skull. His dead, empty skull head.

  21. It’s naive to presume that social media is the primary driver of vaccine hesitancy.

    It’s not naive. It is a transparent lie intended to rationalize whatever he wanted to do re social media anyway. This shouldn’t surprise anyone when you mix a new factoid (vaccine hesitancy) with a preset political agenda.

    Just looking at a map of vaccination rate by state – the differential between highest (VT at 67%) and lowest (AL at 34%) is too high to even take the ‘social media’ explanation seriously.

    1. Lump in FOX News and all the other crap sources of propaganda Republicans get their worldview from.

      I want it noted that I said like back in the 90s that eventually the Republican coalition would commit suicide via stupidity. Of course that never happens on this scale without them taking a lot of innocents with them.

      1. As usual Tony is projecting because he knows the dems are losing it and will get kicked out of office next two elections.

        Pathetic even for a bottom like you.

        1. Perhaps, but only because Republicans discovered that they can use state legislatures to overturn elections they don’t like. Those seems like the actions of a healthy political movement with broad appeal.

          Name one good idea Republicans have had in 40 years. One successful idea that worked. Go ahead, name one.

          1. Operation Warp Speed

            1. LOL–note that he had no response to that one despite several subsequent shitposts downthread.

          2. State legislatures have always had the final word on the selection of electors. Read the Constitution. Now, tell us—in which states have the election results been overturned by a state legislature recently?

            1. The last election saw state legislatures largely doing their routine job. Since that means Donald Trump losing, they have now decided that the problem wasn’t the lack of democratic appeal of their ideas, but that the wrong people had the right to vote, and the myth of voter fraud is enough justification to overturn future elections.

              And many Republican members of congress voted against certifying the electoral college, on the day they were targeted for assassination and the capitol stormed for the purpose of overturning it.

              And you’ll be there defending every last authoritarian power grab, because you think they’re on your side.

              1. Why is it that all leftists think they’re psychic and can read others’ thoughts and feeling? Look at lefty mags like Salon or Atlantic and one article after another is nothing but mind-reading.

            2. State legislatures have always had the final word on the selection of electors. Read the Constitution. Now, tell us—in which states have the election results been overturned by a state legislature recently?

              State legislatures enact their will by passing laws. The electors for all 50 states + D.C. were certified according to the laws enacted prior to the 2020 election. Both sides had ample opportunity to challenge the results of the election through existing processes prior to the Dec. 8th “safe harbor” deadline and the Dec. 14 meeting of the electors in each state to cast their votes.

              What Trump and his allies wanted, was for state legislatures to change the rules after the election to discard the certified results and simply pick Trump electors instead. The Jan. 6 joint session of Congress is to formally read the certified electoral vote counts that states had sent. There was no basis or authority for VP Pence to reject the electoral votes of states Trump wanted him to reject. The Electoral Count Act, passed in response to the 1876 election crisis, was meant to deal with situations where there was ambiguity in which slates of electors a state had certified. (That is what happened in 1876. There were multiple states where it wasn’t clear who was legitimately in charge of the state legislature and thus which slate of electors were the legitimate ones.) None of that was at issue in 2020, so there was no basis for the objection Republicans raised, nor was there in previous such objections that were obviously just a couple of Congresspeople vying for attention.

              Republicans in Georgia and elsewhere have made moves to change the laws so that they might be able to do in the future what Trump had wanted them to do in 2020. Instead of having to prove fraud objectively in the courts or before bipartisan canvassing boards, they want to be able to decide for themselves when the evidence of fraud is good enough to toss the vote counts.

              This is all moving in the wrong direction. A democratic republic relies on voters having the power to change the government when they don’t like what it is doing. When the current government in power can manipulate the rules or simply decide on their own that the vote wasn’t “pure” enough and keep themselves in power, we no longer have a democratic republic.

              1. Well this post is full of lies.

                Election laws in states were changed by the executive in states and post election a dozen suits have agreed with Trump and legislators that these cases were legal.

                Many challenges were brought prior to the election and had judges either slow the suit until after the election or toss them on lack of standing as no voter had yet been harmed by the illegal rule changes.

                After the election the cases were deemed moot of course.

                So other than being completely wrong, good work.

                1. Election laws in states were changed by the executive in states and post election a dozen suits have agreed with Trump and legislators that these cases were legal.

                  If this is going to be more than a talking point, you will need to be specific. Which states, which executive officials in those states “changed” election laws illegitimately. And how did the lawsuits challenging those changes turn out? You said that they were deemed “moot” (again, which ones). How often was that because they only challenged the procedures either at the last possible moment or after Trump lost rather than well before people cast their votes under those procedures?

                  I clearly recall the Texas case where some drive through locations were set up in the Houston area (Harris County) using temporary structures. The law said that votes could only be cast inside a “building”, but most of the structures that they had set up were temporary, hence the lawsuit. One remained that was inside a Toyota dealer’s garage, so that seemed to be okay. Harris County had even already used that procedure for the primary in July, but this lawsuit wasn’t filed until the last possible moment, right before voting was to start. Of course, the remedy the GOP activist and candidates were seeking was to have all of the ballots cast that way to be simply tossed out.

                  So, what was I wrong about? Was I wrong about how the Electoral Count Act works and its history? The safe harbor date of Dec. 8? Was I wrong about Trump and his allies pushing for state legislatures like in Michigan and Pennsylvania to unilaterally declare the vote tainted and simply appoint (Trump) electors directly without having to prove fraud in a neutral setting?

                  1. Did Biden not just praise certain states for changing the election laws right before the election? How many of those changes were via executive or judicial order, and how many were done through the legislature? If your point is that “the current government in power [is manipulating] the rules or simply [deciding] on their own…[to] keep themselves in power,” shouldn’t these 11th-hour illegitimate modifications concern you? Seems somewhat myopic. Here’s an example: https://www.capitalismreview.com/2020/11/u-s-election-2020-last-minute-rule-changes-responsible-for-election-confusion-chaos-and-low-public-confidence-in-results/

                    1. Thank you for one example of a reasonable criticism of election changes in 2020, though it was one that came about through court order rather than executive decisions as JesseAz was talking about. Yes, I agree that a court should not be waiving the election day deadline for receiving mail ballots without solid evidence that circumstances warrant such a dramatic move. Gorsuch’s criticisms seem fair (I haven’t read more than what was quoted in the link you provided, so I don’t know more than that about that case), so the Court was probably right to rule as it did.

                      Some accommodations based on the unique circumstances of the pandemic were reasonable. Ensuring that everyone that wants to vote can do so, even under such extreme circumstances, is a valid interest. Legislatures looking to “tighten up” laws and procedures, so that rules can be consistent and respect election security are also legitimate interests. What concerns me is when legislators look not to the legitimate interests of election security and voter access and instead look to favor themselves and their political party.

                      The only reason that extending that mail voting deadline may have favored Democrats, had it been allowed, would be because Trump had turned the usual non-partisan nature of absentee/mail ballots on its head and discouraged Republicans from using it. Both Republicans and Democrats in both blue and red states had been making voting by mail easier for nearly 30 years because voters on both sides wanted that. Before Trump started casting doubt on its security (something he said zero about prior to COVID, and 25% of the ballots cast in his 2016 victory were through the mail), if anything, Republicans thought they might have a slight edge in absentee ballots, since older voters tended to use it more than younger ones.

                      Moves by the GOP in Texas and Georgia, for instance, to put more procedures and obstacles in the way of mail voting are reversing decisions they had made in years prior. The obvious answer to why they would do so is that only now do they see Democrats getting an advantage from it, and they only have themselves and Trump to blame for any advantage Democrats get from mail voting.

                      The takeaway that I want to get across is that all of us, regardless of our own partisan preferences, should want elections to be run as cleanly and fairly as possible, even if our side ends up losing. The response of a party to losing an election should be to do more to convince a majority of voters to support them next time. They can do that by running better candidates, communicate their ideas more effectively, or *gasp* even rethink their positions to better reflect what voters want and need. We should not let them respond to losses by changing rules in an effort to manipulate the turnout of voters in way that favors them, even if that means it is more likely that we get what we want. That is because weakening the actual basis of democratic representation in government, the consent of the governed, hurts us all in the long run.

              2. Amen. This is 100% correct.

      2. The CDC and Operation Warp Speed are the reason I’m not getting vaccinated.

        Much the same way I feel vindicated about swearing off GM and Chrysler after TARP every time I hear someone complaining about how their Silverado or Jeep is a piece of crap. There was plenty of reason to avoid them beforehand. Dumping truckloads of government cash on them just seals the deal.

        1. So you’re taking other people’s health into your own hands because, what, you have moral principles?

          If you don’t like industries getting government subsidies, you must stop using petroleum products immediately. Talk about a product propped up well beyond its usefulness.

          1. >>taking other people’s health into your own hands

            when you step outside and do anything …

            1. I realize the entire edifice of libertarianism crumbles when you realize this, but any first-year physics course or even just sitting and thinking for a minute reveals the truth: there is no such thing as doing nothing. You are taking up space, using resources, and breathing microbes on other people. The only way to even approach being actually passive in the world is to be dead and cremated.

              1. is also the only way to not take other people’s health into your hands

              2. “any first-year physics course or even just sitting and thinking for a minute reveals the truth: there is no such thing as doing nothing. You are taking up space, using resources, and breathing microbes on other people. The only way to even approach being actually passive in the world is to be dead and cremated.”

                So that was all in first year physics?

                Slow down Tony.

            2. I read that people driving on federally funded public roads have died on those same roads.

              1. Something you of course have to read about, because you’d never use something built with other people’s money. That’s stealing.

                1. I pay the gas tax unlike the folks that drive all electric vehicles. And the extra money I pay in taxes covers the road funding that occurs above that from the gas tax.

                  1. But you don’t pay for the specific stretches of road you use, nor do you account for whether you’ve paid your precise share for your use.

                    All you have to do is extrapolate the idea of paying for something in common to every other public good. Pooling resources is not stealing, it’s efficiency, as you’ve so astutely observed.

                    1. Every road and bridge ever created in the entire world was made by government. Every. Single. One. Without government there would be no infrastructure at all. Nothing.

                    2. Economies of scale =/ collectivism. I prefer more of government to be a direct use tax such as public education, unemployment and other welfare.
                      If I am forced by govt to pool my resources and pay more than what I get back in value that absolutely is stealing.
                      I pay more into the gas tax system than what I get in return. And pay more in income taxes than what I get back in value so I am covering the additional funding for roads and then some.
                      There are folks that pay less (bicyclists that also use gas vehicles) and those that don’t pay at all (bicyclists and electric vehicle operators).

                    3. But you don’t pay for the specific stretches of road you use, nor do you account for whether you’ve paid your precise share for your use.

                      I can go right on E-470 in Denver and pay the tolls any time I want–and unlike the other shitty roads in the metro area, it’s smooth as silk.

                      My gas taxes, federal taxes, and state taxes are paying for the shitty roads.

                    4. “If I am forced by govt to pool my resources and pay more than what I get back in value that absolutely is stealing.”

                      I suppose we can leave aside the fact that stealing is and only is what the law says it is.

                      At some point it becomes impossible to do a precise accounting of the benefits accrued from spending pooled resources. Funding of basic science often leads to dead ends, and the benefits, while vast and invaluable, are unpredictable. Sometimes you just invest in stuff and hope some good comes of it.

                      If you want to do away with democratic government, you have to do away with any accounting at all for your wealth. It becomes a fiction you tell yourself, one some warlord with a stronger army is perfectly free to disagree with.

                    5. For a company that innovates products, that accounting is easy. R&D budget which is funded by selling the good, service or licensing.
                      So you are saying what happened to the Jews during the Shoa was ok because it was legal. Got it.
                      I do agree with you on funding science; we will never be able to repay Fauci for his efforts.
                      Democracy is two money-grubbing selfish Tonys and a Jew voting on whose paintings will be confiscated and sold to fund the upcoming invasion of Poland.

                    6. Red – in Mexico, there are shitty public roads (possibly due to the Tonys that do not pay their way but use mental gymnastics tp justify it anyways) and like in Denver there are toll roads that have good asphalt and police protection. Driving the toll roads from Mexico City to Veracruz is the way to go.

                    7. Hey Chumby. Still got me on mute for being mean to Ken?

                      Round here it’s the same thing. Public roads are a great way to ruin the suspension in your car. Better to get a creepy transponder.

                    8. And why not get the device? They’re taking a picture of your plates anyway.

              2. I read that people driving on federally funded public roads have died on those same roads.

                STOP THE CONSTRUCTION OF KILLER ROADS! Don’t you care who dies?

            3. Roy Batty’s speech on fear at the end of Blade Runner pretty much encapsulates the Tony’s of the world.

              1. Agreed. Except Batty is a philosopher-soldier who cast off his shackles striving for more life, thus pretty cool as far as homicidal artificial lifeforms go, and Tony is generally whiny and dishonest. Although, I might have argued that the latter were the human condition in my earlier years. And, I know you weren’t comparing Tony to Batty, just the living in fear concept that so many folks like Tony seem to take for granted.

          2. When you drive over 15mph you put my life at risk, please don’t do that.

            1. When you drive over 15 mph in a school zone as kids are going to or from school, you are putting their lives at risk. So please don’t do that. In fact, the speeding ticket is really hefty in school zones, as it should be.

              If you want to say that people are being overcautious about something, then you might want to rely on evidence specific to that situation, instead of poorly thought out analogies.

              1. You want me to cite the number of traffick deaths a year? Why? If you choose to be ignorant thats on you.

              2. Stop molesting children, jason

              3. You might want to rely on evidence specific to that situation, instead of poorly thought out analogies.

                As you wish: https://www.bitchute.com/video/bCMPSBJoOtjE/

                1. Sorry, but I’m not going to watch a video on some random webpage called “bitchute” that has a title “COVID-19 hoax explained”. If you have something of scientific validity to point to, go for it. But I have better respect for my time than to follow what obviously looks to be conspiracy nonsense.

      3. Fun fact: the cool aid drinking cultists at Jonestown were left wing radicals. They were intent on creating a socialist utopia and hated capitalism.

        Do you know how Jones convinced them to kill themselves and their own children? He told them that the “fascists” were going to parachute in, kill the adults, and convert the children to fascism.

        Apparently leaving the children to grow up in adopted American homes was “fascism,” and a fate worse than death.

        Gee, who does that sound like?

        1. BTW, he was also big into racial justice before it was cool. Fun fact.

    2. Man, guess you had to move off your Harvard link after the beat down yesterday.

      So this tracker includes children under 18 where there isn’t a non trial blessing on the vaccine.

      So you’re starting with crap on the offset. Good work I guess?

      Secondly it shows 90% vaccination for those above the age of 65, which is the at risk population. Asking 20 year olds to get vaccinated is just anti-science crap at this point based on their risk profile.

      So you’ve gone back to your chicken little routine huh?

      1. For Example… You’re comparing Connecticut with a reported 17.4% under 18 vaccination rate. Why? It isn’t approved for under 12 at all and still not approved nationally for 12-18.

        So at this point you either don’t understand the data or you’re purposefully misleading people.

  22. >>a worthy goal!

    oy give it up

  23. Some have noted the curious contradiction in Trump giving himself credit for the vaccine while being the leader of the perpetually paranoid vaccine denier crowd. There’s a sense of relief in some that his cosmic-level insecurity at least means he has to acknowledge the efficacy of the vaccine to some degree. If it hadn’t happened on his watch, he’d be leading the charge against it.

    Of course his followers are perfectly capable of cognitive dissonance far more absurd than this. People are under no obligation to think even a little bit rationally. Our brains are not reasoning machines, they are rationalization machines. Reason takes lifelong and daily effort. It’s the most natural thing in the world to believe that the vaccine is a hoax and that Trump deserves praise for delivering the vaccine. That’s actually a far easier thing to wrap a mind around than the biology of viruses and the behavior of crowds. We are 1% different from chimps, and that mostly has to do with the olfactory process.

    1. Did you miss yesterday’s roundup? Because you keep pushing a narrative that is a complete lie based on polling. Even CNN had the numbers of unvaccinated at 41% Dem, 20% Independent, and 39% Republican.

      1. I can’t find those numbers, but I can find numbers showing an overwhelming party difference between people who are hoping to get the vaccine and those who refuse to get it.

        You’re right to point out that vaccine deniers are actively causing the deaths of people who have every intention of getting the vaccine but for whatever reason (usually poverty) haven’t yet.

        1. >>overwhelming party difference

          self-fulfilling prophecy

        2. The most recent Kaiser poll helps illustrate that the vaccine hesitant group doesn’t really lean Republican. Just 20% of the group called themselves Republican with an additional 19% being independents who leaned Republican. The clear majority (61%) were not Republicans (41% said they were Democrats or Democratic leaning independents and 20% were either pure independents or undesignated).

          https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/09/politics/vaccine-hesitant-analysis/index.html

          Sorry for your ignorance.

        3. but for whatever reason (usually poverty) haven’t yet.

          Funny, because we keep hearing from the Vaccine Worshippers that it’s free. If it’s free, poverty isn’t the issue.

          1. Lack of access to a vaccine is a major reason most of the world isn’t vaccinated.

            Perfectly wealthy FOX News junkies refusing to get it because they spend their days being freaked out of whatever Tucker Carlson instructs them to be freaked out about are the only moral abominations in this conversation.

            1. I’m allowing a vulnerable person in a non-first world nation to be vaccinated before I get mine because I am healthy and am in a low-risk category. If you are in a low-risk category (no reports of mild retardation being an exacerbater of severeness so you are all set there), you stole a vaccine away from a needy person in a less developed country.

            2. Lack of access to a vaccine is a major reason most of the world isn’t vaccinated.

              That doesn’t have anything to do with the US or poverty.

              Again, if it’s free, poverty isn’t the issue. Neither is access, since you can get the J&J at any Walmart.

    2. Our brains are not reasoning machines, they are rationalization machines.

      Wrong. They are pattern-recognition machines.

  24. When will TDS Reason admit Biden, who they supported, is an unmitigated disaster? My guess is never, they don’t have the balls to admit they were wrong.
    Biden, worst President ever after only 6 Months.

    1. Hmmm…I dunno. Worse than Andrew Johnson?

      1. Absolutely. Johnson was a Democratic Vice President to a Republican president. He was a southerner, though loyal to the US. The Republicans tried to remove him that alone. The man face unbelievable challenges. Replacing an assassinated popular President. Facing a hostile Congress. Trying to manage a decimated south during reconstruction and helping Union soldiers being discharged from the Army.

        Now Biden is the most popular President ever. (LOL and sarc). He has a totally supportive Congress, both Houses. The economy was making a V shaped recovery before the took over. We were energy independent before Biden took over. The Pandemic as slowing and there was already effective vaccines. The border was secure.
        Bide screwed all that up in just 6 months. He wins worst President ever.

        1. “With the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson became the 17th President of the United States (1865-1869), an old-fashioned southern Jacksonian Democrat of pronounced states’ rights views.” – whitehouse.gov

          “In March 1867, the Radicals effected their own plan of Reconstruction, again placing southern states under military rule. They passed laws placing restrictions upon the President. When Johnson allegedly violated one of these, the Tenure of Office Act, by dismissing Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, the House voted eleven articles of impeachment against him. He was tried by the Senate in the spring of 1868 and acquitted by one vote.”
          Sounds a lot like what is going on today.

  25. This article would be a lot more persuasive if it actually dived into the real reasons for vaccine resistance – it became a partisan issue as soon as Trump lost. Just like COVID itself became a partisan issue because Trump and his team worried that it would hurt his re-election campaign, once Trump wasn’t going to be in office to take credit for distributing the vaccines widely (that his administration helped foster) and finally beating back COVID. Finding things to criticize Biden’s administration, and the health experts that resisted Trump’s stance on COVID, is much more important than actually sending the message to Trump supporters that the vaccines are the best way to end the crisis and return to something resembling a normal life.

    If Trump and his boosters in the right-wing media sphere actually had the interests of Americans in mind, rather than winning elections or TV ratings and internet clicks, they would put that message at the front and focus on constructive criticism of Democrats, the federal health bureaucracy, and mainstream media. Instead, it is all about tearing them down in order to build themselves up.

    That is a common failing of all sides in partisan politics, of course. But that is the point. Trump was always playing politics with COVID. And it is also galling for Soave to criticize Fauci and the like for saying things that are worth criticizing, but while not saying a single word about Trump telling Bob Woodward in private that he liked downplaying COVID, after telling him that COVID was several times worse than the flu, and then going out in public and comparing it to the flu as he downplayed it.

    No one was more responsible for misinformation about COVID than Trump, when his job was to be a positive leader during crises.

    1. I mean, you’re wrong, and repeating a narrative that cable News is repeating without facts.

      Harris/Biden did more to question the vaccine than Trump ever did.

      The populations not getting vaccinated are young adults and minorities.

      https://www.kwtx.com/2021/07/07/vaccine-hesitancy-grows-among-young-adults/

      1. The most recent Kaiser poll helps illustrate that the vaccine hesitant group doesn’t really lean Republican. Just 20% of the group called themselves Republican with an additional 19% being independents who leaned Republican. The clear majority (61%) were not Republicans (41% said they were Democrats or Democratic leaning independents and 20% were either pure independents or undesignated).

        https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/09/politics/vaccine-hesitant-analysis/index.html

        1. That’s “vaccine hesitant,” which excludes the “vaccine resistant,” who are 30+ points more likely to be Republicans. Fun with polling!

          1. Oh, so you’re an idiot. Gotcha.

            1. No, your using data to try to prove the opposite point of what they do prove.

              The reason a majority of “vaccine hesitant” people are Democrats or Independents is because Republicans capture an overwhelming number of the “vaccine resistant.”

              The hesitant are just the middle-of-the-road voters, what we used to call low-information voters.

              Republicans are not low-information voters. Their brains are filled to the brim with information–all of it factually wrong.

              1. No. I used actual data. You’ve used none. You changed the word choice when proven wrong. You’re an idiot.

          2. Way to be a shining example of why dems are complete narcissistic assholes. It’s not about facts; it’s all about finger-pointing for you idiots.

            1. I’m explaining the facts of that poll. Jesse is still shitting himself with humiliation because he misinterpreted it, or he is deliberately lying about what it says because he’s an asshole.

              You’re right, it does feel pretty good to be me.

              1. No, you aren’t. You are changing words for no reason because you were wrong. You think the vaccine “resistance” is a bigger population than vaccine hesitant? Do you know what kaiser defined hesitant as?

              2. “I’m explaining the facts of that poll. Jesse is still shitting himself with humiliation because he misinterpreted it, or he is deliberately lying about what it says because he’s an asshole.
                You’re right, it does feel pretty good to be me.”

                Shitstain is stoopid, smug and usually drunk; this is what you get.

          3. Way to be a shining example of why dems are narcissistic, finger-pointing a-holes. It’s not about facts; it’s all about blaming someone else.

          4. Fun with polling indeed. 2097 people. To make any meaningful conclusions based on data from this poll is willful use of the composition fallacy to lie.

    2. I think there’s plenty of people showing that vaccine or not they’ll return to a normal life if given the chance. Making “normal” as a state to return to is left for Tony’s of the world that confuse or want to project their fears onto others. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong what they are doing but its something (divergent or free thought from mainstream) that short circuits many of the folks that post here. Somehow a non hive mind thought causes a melt down.

      1. Partisanship really doesn’t seem to come into play with getting or not getting the vaccine.

        Trump himself, and most R figureheads, has encouraged people to get the vaccine, and continue to do so..
        Inconvenient that those who call Trump supporters a “cult” also want to say that partisanship is the primary motivation preventing those same people from getting The Jab. These are inconsistent, to the point of mutually exclusive, beliefs.

        Where partisanship does come into play, and is quote visible, is in who decides to make getting the vaccine a prominent feature of their identity.

  26. What kind of asshole is ok with the government deciding what you can or can’t read?

    1. Assholes who perceive themselves as becoming one of the elite who get to make the decisions when their Reich achieves power.

    2. What kind of asshole is ok with the government deciding what you can or can’t read?

      Stalin. Hitler. Mao. Jotard.

      Those kinds of assholes.

  27. Personally, I think Comcast, Verizon, AT+T, and Sprint should do the right thing and deplatform Twitter and Facebook, refuse them access to their cable and cellphone networks. They can do that because they’re private companies.

    1. Thank you, General Sherman.

    2. Or if elected in 2024, President Trump can ask them to deplatform Twitter and FB while having his biased FTC chair threaten them.

  28. On the other hand, Facebook is the opium of the people. Whatever they do to Facebook is probably well deserved.

    قصة قصيرة

  29. Not really; The ‘Feds’ want to abolish the 1st Amendment and start their Fascist Army out of their own Power-Mad arrogance.

  30. Meet the new nazis. Where’s Antifa on this shit? Oh yeah… they’re actually fascists themselves so they are probably on board.

    1. The modern left: taking the worst from nazism and communism and combining them into their M.O.

  31. Poor Reason. They thought Trump was the baddie. See now that Biden is 1000x worse?

    1. But, no more mean tweets.

  32. Curious that reason koch is not reporting the latest FBI scandal.

    There is a blackout on stories here.

    1. Reason now calls it a whiteout to signal their support of CRT.

  33. Remember how Biden promised that once he took office he would ramp up vaccine distribution to 1 million vaccines per day and everybody laughed and pointed out that under Trump vaccine distribution was already running at 1 million per day and now Biden claims credit for ramping up vaccine distribution to 1 million per day despite the fact that everybody said it couldn’t possibly be done and that he was setting impossible goals for himself? I wonder if Twitter considers that misinformation.

  34. Biden is looking more and more cadaverous. Are we sure he isn’t just an animatronic Tussaud figure at this point?

  35. If the White House wants to promote vaccination—a worthy goal!—it should stop being so obsessed with what’s happening on Facebook, and social media more broadly. Instead, Biden should push the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to, you know, actually approve the vaccines, which are currently available under emergency use authorization.

    So you’re saying people should derive their opinion of the products from their legal status, rather than vice versa? That government should use its power to license as a tool to influence behavior?

    1. That is not the problem.

      To give full FDA approval takes years because it takes that long. You need to see how long and how much the vaccine is effective against the virus.

      1. I know that. But look what the author of this piece is saying: that all that should be short circuited, because people will look at the legal result as if it’d gone thru those years of testing, and then be confident.

        1. Time-travelers abound!

  36. Its a two way thing. Biden wants to Punish FB whereas it should be government’s duty to educate people about safety of vaccines. Secondly FB is ruining the lives of common people, people are so glued to it. They judge their lives lesser looking at the pics of others where they seem to be enjoying more than average American does. So basically both are bad for general public.

    1. “…Secondly FB is ruining the lives of common people, people are so glued to it…”

      You’re full of shit.

  37. The government is focusing on Facebook despite high numbers of vaccinated FB users because this isn’t really about covid misinformation — it’s about getting the Trojan horse of censorship through the gates. Once the government has the complicity of the people and has sufficiently threatened social media with its new anti-trust czar, it will have social media doing its dirty work of censoring every lie and piece of propaganda it wants to throw out, with no fear of oppositional voices.

Please to post comments