It isn’t fascism when healthcare systems get overwhelmed, an unprecedented level of people are dying, and every expert was advising for the measures that were implemented (and more in a lot of cases). There were reasons these rules were put in place. And it wasn’t for anyone’s ego or political points.
Really? That sounds like what you’re saying: it’s acceptable to censor information, criminalize going outsid and not wearing a piece of cloth if it’s for a good cause. Namely, it’s okay to do these things if fewer people die of a disease. This is, in fact, justifying the means by pointing to the goal (the ends). Can you explain the distinction between what you’re saying and how I’ve explained it?
You’re sources don’t support the censorship of information. Just calling out supposed “vaccine hesitancy” and saying to stop it due to its impact on the public health. And yes temporary measure to wear masks and isolate is perfectly acceptable given the circumstances.
I would suggest you actually lookup examples of fascism and compare it to what yoy see today. Try send connect the dots.
Literally the first paragraph from the article by the US Congress:
Newly released documents show that the White House has played a major role in censoring Americans on social media. Email exchanges between Rob Flaherty, the White House’s director of digital media, and social-media executives prove the companies put Covid censorship policies in place in response to relentless, coercive pressure from the White House—not voluntarily. The emails emerged Jan. 6 in the discovery phase of Missouri v. Biden, a free-speech case brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana and four private plaintiffs represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance.
And now you admit that the ends justify the means?
I’m not sure why you’re insisting on not actually reading the document but alright:
On March 14, 2021, Mr. Flaherty emailed a Facebook executive (whose name we’ve redacted as a courtesy) with the subject line “You are hiding the ball” and a link to a Washington Post article about Facebook’s own research into “the spread of ideas that contribute to vaccine hesitancy,” as the paper put it. “I think there is a misunderstanding,” the executive wrote back. “I don’t think this is a misunderstanding,” Mr. Flaherty replied. “We are gravely concerned that your service is one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancy—period. . . . We want to know that you’re trying, we want to know how we can help, and we want to know that you’re not playing a shell game. . . . This would all be a lot easier if you would just be straight with us.”
Emphasis mine is the government explaining the need for, and the demanding, censorship.
Next paragraph:
On March 21, after failing to placate Mr. Flaherty, the Facebook executive sent an email detailing the company’s planned policy changes. They included “removing vaccine
misinformation” and “reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not
contain actionable misinformation.” Facebook characterized this material as “often-true
content” that “can be framed as sensation, alarmist, or shocking.” Facebook pledged to
“remove these Groups, Pages, and Accounts when they are disproportionately promoting this sensationalized content.”
This paragraph details how Facebook, under pressure from the government, agreed to remove information. That is, the government censored information. If you’d like to argue that a private individual being coerced into deleting something isn’t censorship, then perhaps you’d say the same about a newspaper being forced to not run a story about a government killing?
And for the sake of getting further context, let’s look at the next few paragraphs:
In that exchange, Mr. Flaherty demanded to know what Facebook was doing to “limit the
spread of viral content” on WhatsApp, a private message app, especially “given its reach in immigrant communities and communities of color.” The company responded three weeks later with a lengthy list of promises.
Further explaining government demands for censorship.
On April 9, Mr. Flaherty asked “what actions and changes you’re making to ensure . . . you’re not making our country’s vaccine hesitancy problem worse.” He faulted the company for insufficient zeal in earlier efforts to control political speech: “In the electoral context, you tested and deployed an algorithmic shift that promoted quality news and information about the election. . . . You only did this, however, after an election that you helped increase skepticism in, and an insurrection which was plotted, in large part, by your platform. And then you turned it back off. I want some assurances, based in data, that you are not doing the same thing again here.” The executive’s response: “Understood.”
The government, again, demands censorship.
On April 23, Mr. Flaherty sent the executive an internal memo that he claimed had been
circulating in the White House. It asserts that “Facebook plays a major role in the spread of
COVID vaccine misinformation” and accuses the company of, among other things, “failure to monitor events hosting anti-vaccine and COVID disinformation” and “directing attention to COVID-skeptics/anti-vaccine ‘trusted’ messengers.
More pressure from the government.
On May 10, the executive sent Mr. Flaherty a list of steps Facebook had taken “to increase
vaccine acceptance.” Mr. Flaherty scoffed, “Hard to take any of this seriously when you’re
actively promoting anti-vaccine pages in search,” and linked to an NBC reporter’s tweet. The executive wrote back: “Thanks Rob—both of the accounts featured in this tweet have been removed from Instagram entirely for breaking our policies.”
And this is a very clear example of censorship happening.
I think you get the idea. If you’d like to dispute what the article says, why don’t you read it yourself?
It isn’t fascism when healthcare systems get overwhelmed, an unprecedented level of people are dying, and every expert was advising for the measures that were implemented (and more in a lot of cases). There were reasons these rules were put in place. And it wasn’t for anyone’s ego or political points.
So in other words… The ends justify the means?
No.
Really? That sounds like what you’re saying: it’s acceptable to censor information, criminalize going outsid and not wearing a piece of cloth if it’s for a good cause. Namely, it’s okay to do these things if fewer people die of a disease. This is, in fact, justifying the means by pointing to the goal (the ends). Can you explain the distinction between what you’re saying and how I’ve explained it?
You’re sources don’t support the censorship of information. Just calling out supposed “vaccine hesitancy” and saying to stop it due to its impact on the public health. And yes temporary measure to wear masks and isolate is perfectly acceptable given the circumstances.
I would suggest you actually lookup examples of fascism and compare it to what yoy see today. Try send connect the dots.
Literally the first paragraph from the article by the US Congress:
And now you admit that the ends justify the means?
Don’t cherrypick quotes. What does the next 2 paragraph say?
I’m not sure why you’re insisting on not actually reading the document but alright:
Emphasis mine is the government explaining the need for, and the demanding, censorship.
Next paragraph:
This paragraph details how Facebook, under pressure from the government, agreed to remove information. That is, the government censored information. If you’d like to argue that a private individual being coerced into deleting something isn’t censorship, then perhaps you’d say the same about a newspaper being forced to not run a story about a government killing?
And for the sake of getting further context, let’s look at the next few paragraphs:
Further explaining government demands for censorship.
The government, again, demands censorship.
More pressure from the government.
And this is a very clear example of censorship happening.
I think you get the idea. If you’d like to dispute what the article says, why don’t you read it yourself?
You’re conflating information with misinformation. The quotes say misinformation, not information.