The Biden Fiasco and the Blatant Censoring of Online Commentary

 Well, I think this time Facebook and Twitter have really done it. I really think they have signed their own death warrants. 

They are openly and blatantly refusing to even countenance publication in any form of the accusations laid out by the New York Post regarding Biden, his son and Ukraine. Or even any commentary on the accusations.

Now, here comes the killer blow for those "platforms". If they are censoring content, if they are actively suppressing even commentary of the accusations, then they must fear a lawsuit for doing so. In that case they are thinking like publishers. They are acting like publishers. They are publishers, not platforms. 

The distinction is complete and therefore previous "platforms" given immunity under section 230 of the CDA does not apply because they are now thinking and acting like publishers. 

Which then opens the gleeful opportunities for citizens to sue said former platforms/now publishers for the laws that apply to publishers: defamation, libel etc.

You cannot have the ability to act like a publisher without de facto being a publisher. If you act think, edit, suppress and manipulate content like a publisher, then you are a publisher. If you think and therefore act like a publisher, then you already accept the fact. Whether the entity doing the publishing is a person or a corporation, there is no difference. 

The opportunity to sue arises merely because in can be argued in court that the "platforms" are no longer acting as such. By there mere actions, they become de facto publishers and lose section 230 immunity.

I'm rubbing my hands now waiting for the first big lawsuit to drop.

Facebook and Twitter, by their actions have opened themselves to this. Jack Dorsey has realised this and has gone on record trying to justify the censorship: it's not proven, the information was obtained illegally, yadda-yadda, even using the usual management weasel-word phrases like "we didn't communicate correctly". It doesn't matter. A platform would not censor and suppress on any grounds other than possibly public safety. 

The Biden revelations do not constitute public safety and there are grounds for public interest arguments in defence of allowing commentary on them.

These so-called platforms were on shaky ground previously. I think this is the final nail in the coffin for any protections availed to them under section 230.

COVID-19: Making Political Points out of a Pandemic.

 So far this week we've had Labour MPs lying about lack of engagement with government over local lockdowns, we've had the leader of the Labour Party lying, saying that all Northern Councils were against the lockdowns, which pissed off the leader of Bolton Town Council.

Then we had the leader of the Welsh assembly (yet another Labour idiot) saying that he's closing the border to Wales and stopping people from covid hotspots entering "his country". Totally unpoliceable and in effect racist. Denying people from England access to Wales when parts of Wales are fucked and in extra lockdown measures anyway is a bit rich. 

It's exactly the same as people blaming the channel-crossing immigrants for everything bad that happens in England. It's just as bad, just as wrong-headed.

Talking about immigrants, what is he going to do about the immigrants being bussed from the Dover coast direct to the camp in Wales? 

Especially as they are not isolated for two weeks, they can roam free as soon as they get to Wales. Is Mr Drakeford going to install a wall around the camp to protect his Welsh countryfolk?

Or is he talking totally unworkable bollocks for soundbites? I think I know the answer.

Wee Jimmy Crankie up in Haggisland is also facing somewhat of a quagmire of her own making now. The rules and regulations in the North have twisted and turned so much.

I just wish that we could just get back to common sense politics. But no-one is holding the posturing politicians to account. The press certainly aren't asking intelligent questions when policy is announced, which begs the question: are the press intelligent?

If the press don't have the wit or intelligence to ask probing questions, then who will? 

If we don't start start knocking the lying, grandstanding, point-scoring politicians down a peg or two, we're on a very slippery slope. Because the politicians will get a sense of unfettered power, which is not a good thing. Being held to account is what prevents excesses like those that happened in the thirties. We do not want totalitarian governments of any stripe, flag, banner or political persuasion. 

COVID-19: Stop the Scattergun Approach.

 The government says when it comes to covid that it is following the science. However, from their actions, this seems about as far from the truth as you can get.

The science says people under the age of 50 have a 99.9% chance of surviving the virus. The chances of surviving stay above 95% up to the age of 70.

So why are we not targeting those people who are at higher risk, like old people and those with pre-existing conditions, like diabetics? Get them to shield at home and let the rest of the population go about their daily business.

The current lockdown approach, even local lockdowns are a like using a Blunderbuss to kill a fly. The lockdown rules themselves are pushing people together and creating MORE risk of transmission than just letting people carry on with their lives.

I've already said we should (for the time being) lower the pension age so that those over 60 can remove themselves from the workforce and reduce their number of contacts.

Those with serious illnesses (essentially those people that qualify for the flu jab) should get a letter to be paid to stay at home. After all, if the flu is s risk to these people, then covid-19 certainly is.

Then the youngsters can get on and get infected. Those with serious covid symptoms go straight to the Nightingale hospitals, which allows the regular NHS facilities to function as normal. Only if and when there's a chance of the Nightingale units being overtopped (say 75-80% occupancy) is the point we start to lock down. 

That way the economy gets to continue, people's freedoms are not eroded and there's a bloody good reason for locking down. Rather than the shit-show we have at the moment, where a city is in full lockdown but the people can still drive to a pub 10 miles away.

At the moment the government have it arse-about-face and it's about time they were challenged on the policies in place at the moment or the government themselves had a bloody good rethink and returned to common sense.