Matt Taibbi

Rank 22 of 47
|
Score 45
6/26/2024, 8:27:05 PM
X
In reply to:
Lord DS
@LordDSofCanada
·
581d
@PiscoLitty @mtaibbi @DrJBhattacharya @AaronKheriatyMD @MartinKulldorff So come next year if Trump wins, are you going to be fine with HIS government deciding what is misinformation and can be banned off social media?
Pisco
@PiscoLitty
·
582d
@mtaibbi @DrJBhattacharya @AaronKheriatyMD @MartinKulldorff Your distorted censorship claims lie at the feet of social media companies not the government. If the record were stronger on government coercion, the plaintiffs would have likely cleared injury threshold. The factual record is garbage and you won’t find better plaintiffs.
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
582d
This was the central complaint of plaintiffs @DrJBhattacharya, @AaronKheriatyMD, and @MartinKulldorff - decorated professionals who were suppressed, and whose opinions countered incorrect or dubious government claims.

That situation is exactly why we have a First amendment.
ShaunS
@ShaunQu49662404
·
582d
@mtaibbi So what happens when the government is wrong and the info deemed misinformation is actually true?

The statement 'Of course not, why would I be? Smh' is a response in a chain of tweets discussing the implications of government involvement in determining misinformation on social media. This topic is a significant public issue, particularly in the context of free speech and censorship, and thus constitutes public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but the dismissive tone ('Smh') could be seen as unconstructive.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. The dismissive tone ('Smh') could be seen as undermining constructive dialogue. [-1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, but it also does not contribute to constructive criticism or dialogue.
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principle of free speech but does not use the platform to engage responsibly or with integrity, given the dismissive tone. [-1]