YouTube Bans Ron Paul Institute(twitter.com)
twitter.com
YouTube Bans Ron Paul Institute
https://twitter.com/RonPaul/status/1443628757676331012
79 comments
The banning of politicians from any public platform raises questions about the level of influence these platforms hold and their impact on democracy. I'm not sure where things will land but this is a bold move by YouTube. I'm surprised they picked Ron Paul to test this on.
https://twitter.com/RonPaul/status/1443643765567143950 suggests that this is not a political ban. If it were political, they'd have banned his main channel, not a "seldom used" one.
> To clarify: The Ron Paul Liberty Report YouTube account is still available. The Ron Paul Institute's YouTube account has been terminated. It is a seldom-used account and its termination is perplexing.
> To clarify: The Ron Paul Liberty Report YouTube account is still available. The Ron Paul Institute's YouTube account has been terminated. It is a seldom-used account and its termination is perplexing.
Suspended, not terminated. And actually unsuspended 12 hours ago too - https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1443662425790816262
It's funny how we all begrudgingly accept them booting people off for copyright infringement, but when it comes to personal free speech that affects you and I, people want to hold the line.
Everyone has been subtly programmed that lines must be crossed to protect the mega-corp, but if joe sixpack harms himself, hey that's the price of freedom.
Everyone has been subtly programmed that lines must be crossed to protect the mega-corp, but if joe sixpack harms himself, hey that's the price of freedom.
Well, I think most people accept it because they really don’t have a choice when it comes to copyright, IP holders will bury them in lawsuits and YouTube will lose most of them.
They didn't pick Ron Paul to test this on, and it's not a bold move. YouTube has been in the censorship game for a long, long time.
A lot of content creators -- of documentaries -- created Nebula because they were sick and tired of getting censored.
https://nebula.app/videos?category=history
These aren't wackos. These are mostly serious scholars, tired of a serious problem with Google. I'm giving this as an example; this has been a problem for a lot of people for a long time.
A lot of content creators -- of documentaries -- created Nebula because they were sick and tired of getting censored.
https://nebula.app/videos?category=history
These aren't wackos. These are mostly serious scholars, tired of a serious problem with Google. I'm giving this as an example; this has been a problem for a lot of people for a long time.
For sure this is not the first instance of censorship but I'm not aware of any famous American politicians getting censored before, are there any?
I seem to remember your former president getting banned? His shtick may have been that he entered politics as an outsider but once he was in he surely was a politician, and a famous one at that.
I'm not American but think it's significant because they're American companies.
I thought that was Twitter not YouTube. I could be wrong.
I thought that was Twitter not YouTube. I could be wrong.
As far as I know he was banned more or less across the board - Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Twitch, Snapchat, Shopify, Reddit and possibly others [1].
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/11/trump-b...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/11/trump-b...
The more you know. That does make this less significant.
It certainly does not, it makes it all the more clear that it is foolhardy to rely on these centralised corporate entities to carry your message for you unless that message happens to coincide with the current desired narrative - and even in that case it would be wise to not rely on them given that the narrative can and will change.
Every grain of sand leaking from their hands adds to the viability of a decentralised 'net so the more they censor, the more they'll lose. I say let them lose everything, let Youtube become a wasteland of cat videos interspersed with government broadcasts and kitschy music videos, let it become the online equivalent of a shopping mall past its heyday where elevator music echoes through empty galleries, let interesting material migrate to alternative distribution channels. All that is needed for that is a reliable CDN, a problem which might be solvable using p2p distribution like Peertube and LBRY do. Once this is established there will be another fight, this time led by copyright holders who insist on blocking these channels so the system needs to be robust against such attempts.
Will there be fewer 'Youtube millionaires'? Sure, that was a short-lived fad which is unlikely to survive in a decentralised 'net. Is this something to mourn over? Not in my opinion.
Every grain of sand leaking from their hands adds to the viability of a decentralised 'net so the more they censor, the more they'll lose. I say let them lose everything, let Youtube become a wasteland of cat videos interspersed with government broadcasts and kitschy music videos, let it become the online equivalent of a shopping mall past its heyday where elevator music echoes through empty galleries, let interesting material migrate to alternative distribution channels. All that is needed for that is a reliable CDN, a problem which might be solvable using p2p distribution like Peertube and LBRY do. Once this is established there will be another fight, this time led by copyright holders who insist on blocking these channels so the system needs to be robust against such attempts.
Will there be fewer 'Youtube millionaires'? Sure, that was a short-lived fad which is unlikely to survive in a decentralised 'net. Is this something to mourn over? Not in my opinion.
Comparing messy AI that will demonetize/remove historic retellings of traumatic events, wars, and hate crimes to 'censoring' Ron Paul is ridiculous.
Most of them moved to because of demonetization... Where swearing can demonetize a video as well as mentioning rape or murder in contexts explicitly. Yes that is horrible to punish literal historians talking about these events that really happened that we should be educated on but, how do you separate those from actually hateful content so charmin/coke/corporation still will pay you to run ads?
Letting people think the vaccine is dangerous without scientific proof when they could die without it, isn't government regulation friendly.
edit: to day I learned there's a down vote feature lol. Didn't know acknowledging a private company has interests beyond letting people saying w/e when want when it can negatively impact their bottom line would be so controversial. Also banning him for being conservative is very different from banning spreading vaccine misinformation. Then grouping that with removing historians incomes due to messy AI implementation to save YouTube's ad friendliness to keep their bottom line is just a victim complex.
Most of them moved to because of demonetization... Where swearing can demonetize a video as well as mentioning rape or murder in contexts explicitly. Yes that is horrible to punish literal historians talking about these events that really happened that we should be educated on but, how do you separate those from actually hateful content so charmin/coke/corporation still will pay you to run ads?
Letting people think the vaccine is dangerous without scientific proof when they could die without it, isn't government regulation friendly.
edit: to day I learned there's a down vote feature lol. Didn't know acknowledging a private company has interests beyond letting people saying w/e when want when it can negatively impact their bottom line would be so controversial. Also banning him for being conservative is very different from banning spreading vaccine misinformation. Then grouping that with removing historians incomes due to messy AI implementation to save YouTube's ad friendliness to keep their bottom line is just a victim complex.
If it's just AI, you separate them with actual human oversight.
From what I understand, they moved less because of demonetization, and more because of the chilling effect it had on free speech. They needed to be super-careful in script writing to make sure they didn't anger the YouTube algorithm.
I'll also mention another darker side of this: Google is almost entirely liberal inside. If a liberal channel is wrongly banned, an army of Googlers quickly rushes to fix it. If a conservative channel is wrongly banned, there's internal snickering. AIs are not neutral, and Google's reflects the biases of the people who keep tweaking it.
From what I understand, they moved less because of demonetization, and more because of the chilling effect it had on free speech. They needed to be super-careful in script writing to make sure they didn't anger the YouTube algorithm.
I'll also mention another darker side of this: Google is almost entirely liberal inside. If a liberal channel is wrongly banned, an army of Googlers quickly rushes to fix it. If a conservative channel is wrongly banned, there's internal snickering. AIs are not neutral, and Google's reflects the biases of the people who keep tweaking it.
> chilling effect it had on free speech
I think comparing this to free speech is just a losing argument cause legally free speech is for criticizing the government non-violently.
They are private companies that have a monopoly, making a new platform focused on enabling creator's means of revenue is the ideal approach.
>If a liberal channel is wrongly banned, an army of Googlers quickly rushes to fix it. If a conservative channel is wrongly banned, there's internal snickering.
Conservatives unironically have a victim complex for this because lefties have the same issue because they are saying the centerist thing. Democrats or what conservatives call 'liberal' right now are mostly a centerist party, trying to be palatable to the largest audience. The same social media companies want to keep the largest ad consumer base as well as advertiser pool.
> another darker side of this
I honestly think it is a societal shift of the vanilla of politics, I'm sorry conservatism is no longer vanilla and is actually the rocky road of politics and isn't as friendly.
Edit: I challenge anyone offended by this point of view, to look into conservatives that have been 'cancelled'/'silenced' viewership and numbers before and after. It usually helps them get more of a following across the board, they inflate this issue beyond how bad it is to get more attention for a possible loss in revenue.
I think comparing this to free speech is just a losing argument cause legally free speech is for criticizing the government non-violently.
They are private companies that have a monopoly, making a new platform focused on enabling creator's means of revenue is the ideal approach.
>If a liberal channel is wrongly banned, an army of Googlers quickly rushes to fix it. If a conservative channel is wrongly banned, there's internal snickering.
Conservatives unironically have a victim complex for this because lefties have the same issue because they are saying the centerist thing. Democrats or what conservatives call 'liberal' right now are mostly a centerist party, trying to be palatable to the largest audience. The same social media companies want to keep the largest ad consumer base as well as advertiser pool.
> another darker side of this
I honestly think it is a societal shift of the vanilla of politics, I'm sorry conservatism is no longer vanilla and is actually the rocky road of politics and isn't as friendly.
Edit: I challenge anyone offended by this point of view, to look into conservatives that have been 'cancelled'/'silenced' viewership and numbers before and after. It usually helps them get more of a following across the board, they inflate this issue beyond how bad it is to get more attention for a possible loss in revenue.
I don't care about "legally." I care about whether we live in a society where we have diverse opinions, and people feel free to express themselves. If we have a system where:
- Market forces drive companies to support one point of view in media, and censor everything else;
- Market forces drive everyone to work under draconian NDAs; and
- Market forces drive companies not to hire people who engage in WrongThink
We've got a broken system where no one has free speech, no matter what the laws say.
And no, you can't successfully start a competing company, because market forces mean that companies which optimize to market forces win.
I don't care about conservatives, liberals, or victim complexes. I care about having reason discourse, civic debate, and free speech. If a social, political, and economic system doesn't allow that, we've got a broken system. As a footnote, every conservative I've spoken to thinks I'm a leftwing nutjob, and every liberal, a rightwing nutjob. If you disagree with either party line on anything (even not in the opposing direction), that's how you're viewed. The polarization and stereotyping is crazy.
- Market forces drive companies to support one point of view in media, and censor everything else;
- Market forces drive everyone to work under draconian NDAs; and
- Market forces drive companies not to hire people who engage in WrongThink
We've got a broken system where no one has free speech, no matter what the laws say.
And no, you can't successfully start a competing company, because market forces mean that companies which optimize to market forces win.
I don't care about conservatives, liberals, or victim complexes. I care about having reason discourse, civic debate, and free speech. If a social, political, and economic system doesn't allow that, we've got a broken system. As a footnote, every conservative I've spoken to thinks I'm a leftwing nutjob, and every liberal, a rightwing nutjob. If you disagree with either party line on anything (even not in the opposing direction), that's how you're viewed. The polarization and stereotyping is crazy.
I agree market forces are largely an issue, just know that when you're saying 'WrongThink' and 'Market forces drive companies to support one point of view in media, and censor everything else;'. Just as a heads up cause I would rather have these conversations than not, just like you said others wouldn't.
It just sounds like the 'reason, discourse and civic debate crowd are more aligning groups known for hate speech or using dog whistles to encourage that type of person to watch their content. For instance a Ben Shapiro, who sounds smart and looks like he wants reasons and facts but really his perfectly crafted throw away statements just take 30 minutes of googling to disprove. Rather than actually providing real fats and logic, it's just the common sense he can placate to and arguments reinforcing a religious agenda. It makes sense why he doesn't notice this as well, because to be cold and analytical it reduces blood flow to the sections of your brain that contribute to emotional thinking which is normally ideal. However, it also turns off your ability to sense when it's seeping into your thoughts regardless. So focusing purely rationality alone, can also dampen your effective rationality because it is harder to tell when you let emotions play a factor in your think
It just sounds like the 'reason, discourse and civic debate crowd are more aligning groups known for hate speech or using dog whistles to encourage that type of person to watch their content. For instance a Ben Shapiro, who sounds smart and looks like he wants reasons and facts but really his perfectly crafted throw away statements just take 30 minutes of googling to disprove. Rather than actually providing real fats and logic, it's just the common sense he can placate to and arguments reinforcing a religious agenda. It makes sense why he doesn't notice this as well, because to be cold and analytical it reduces blood flow to the sections of your brain that contribute to emotional thinking which is normally ideal. However, it also turns off your ability to sense when it's seeping into your thoughts regardless. So focusing purely rationality alone, can also dampen your effective rationality because it is harder to tell when you let emotions play a factor in your think
>The banning of politicians from any public platform raises questions about the level of influence these platforms hold and their impact on democracy.
While the debate about the influence of social media platforms may or may not be relevant (I personally think their influence is all too often overblown to push a political agenda,) these are not and have never been public platforms.
While the debate about the influence of social media platforms may or may not be relevant (I personally think their influence is all too often overblown to push a political agenda,) these are not and have never been public platforms.
Can you give a non-hypothetical example of something that is a public platform?
It is called 'the Internet' and can be used to disseminate whatever you want, within or (to a limited extent) outside of the bounds of the law of the land. As long as you remain within those bounds it is generally possible to say what you want although you might have to erect your own platform - in the form of a website, netcast, 'radio' station or video streaming service like Peertube - to be able to speak freely.
Centralised corporate platforms like Youtube, Twitter and Facebook are not public platforms and should not be treated as such. The 'net is the platform and should be treated as such. Just like the old telcos were not allowed to censor the phone lines it should not be allowed for internet access providers and backbone providers to refuse access or transit because they happen to dislike the message. There is a discussion to be had on whether service providers like AWS should fall under this regime, personally I see more in a decentralised approach but there are arguments to be made for including them.
Centralised corporate platforms like Youtube, Twitter and Facebook are not public platforms and should not be treated as such. The 'net is the platform and should be treated as such. Just like the old telcos were not allowed to censor the phone lines it should not be allowed for internet access providers and backbone providers to refuse access or transit because they happen to dislike the message. There is a discussion to be had on whether service providers like AWS should fall under this regime, personally I see more in a decentralised approach but there are arguments to be made for including them.
> it should not be allowed for internet access providers and backbone providers to refuse access or transit because they happen to dislike the message.
The key word being "should". If my ISP refuses me access because they dislike my message today, do I have any legal recourse?
The key word being "should". If my ISP refuses me access because they dislike my message today, do I have any legal recourse?
If that ISP wants to remain protected as a common carrier you do but it will take a number of such cases to find out whether this holds. This is why I used the term should instead of is - a precedent needs to be set.
On the internet? Not really - every site is privately owned and controlled by some entity with the right to decide what does and doesn't get published on their servers. Even laissez-faire "free speech maximalist" platforms like Gab and Parler are in theory entirely private and centralized, they just choose to allow public access (under their terms of service) and lax moderation. But in practice that decision is entirely arbitrary.
WWW. There could be wide-access public radio and tv, but in practice it isn't used much.
That's what shopping centers in California said ....[1]
[1] https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2008/08/union-access-to...
[1] https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2008/08/union-access-to...
Barring the repeal of Section 230 and some law declaring all social media platforms to be public property, it's true regardless of what the state of California says about shopping centers.
> I'm surprised they picked Ron Paul to test this on.
It's the perfect way to approach it. If what is being said is verifiably false and causes tremendous harm to people why should politicians get treated differently?
What other policies should they be exempt from because they are trying to build a brand for politics?
It's the perfect way to approach it. If what is being said is verifiably false and causes tremendous harm to people why should politicians get treated differently?
What other policies should they be exempt from because they are trying to build a brand for politics?
I'm assuming they have a profit motive not a moral one. I could be wrong but I'm very cynical when it comes to the motives of big companies.
Yea, this one is to make sure that there isn't going to be regulations on youtube or other social media.
Since no regulator would touch social media regulation because of how that looks, however if it enables people dieing at a unprecedented rate then regulators may feel their hand is forced to do something.(facebook/instagram right now is in hot water with regulators too) I doubt anything regulation wise would help or even be good, this is just youtube making sure it looks like the market is regulating itself.
I think also this is to signal to other users 'see we don't pick favourites anyone can get banned'
Since no regulator would touch social media regulation because of how that looks, however if it enables people dieing at a unprecedented rate then regulators may feel their hand is forced to do something.(facebook/instagram right now is in hot water with regulators too) I doubt anything regulation wise would help or even be good, this is just youtube making sure it looks like the market is regulating itself.
I think also this is to signal to other users 'see we don't pick favourites anyone can get banned'
They most certainly have a profit motive, they're a for profit business. It's not their only motive, but it's their primary one, and all other decisions they make are judged against their impact on the bottom line, this decision included. They may take risks that they know could negatively impact that profit if (keyword, if) it goes south, but there is still a very clear consideration for cost and profit there.
Should videos that advocate for abolishing the police be removed and their creators banned too?
1. Common misconception is only right leaning views are being demonetized, it's all politics so yea they are also being punished by youtube as well.
2. People aren't dieing/being permanently injured at rates that hospitals can't keep up with because of the lack of police because the movement was so effective that it has vast swaths of the population without policing. So much so standard solvable emergencies that you could normally be treated for at the hospital end up killing you due to lack of availability of doctors.
3. Those beliefs are based on studies that have been upheld and are reproducible how ineffective current policing policies are and are underperforming by numerous metrics and especially over all in areas with poverty or mostly minority population. So not paying them more money (defund)or rewarding them for underperforming, like one would a corporation that is under performing was the original goal. It has spun a vocal minority into more extreme views of abolishing the police entirely after having emotional reactions looking deeper at those numbers.
2. People aren't dieing/being permanently injured at rates that hospitals can't keep up with because of the lack of police because the movement was so effective that it has vast swaths of the population without policing. So much so standard solvable emergencies that you could normally be treated for at the hospital end up killing you due to lack of availability of doctors.
3. Those beliefs are based on studies that have been upheld and are reproducible how ineffective current policing policies are and are underperforming by numerous metrics and especially over all in areas with poverty or mostly minority population. So not paying them more money (defund)or rewarding them for underperforming, like one would a corporation that is under performing was the original goal. It has spun a vocal minority into more extreme views of abolishing the police entirely after having emotional reactions looking deeper at those numbers.
> what is being said is verifiably false and causes tremendous harm to people
What was being said that is verifiably false and causes tremendous harm to people?
I don't know, and YouTube won't say. They just say that "something" was wrong, but not what was wrong.
What was being said that is verifiably false and causes tremendous harm to people?
I don't know, and YouTube won't say. They just say that "something" was wrong, but not what was wrong.
I'd be with you on this one, but his ban is coming off an announcement they are banning vaccine misinformation as well as all the last posts even on Twitter are relating to the vaccine.
The Republican leaders haven't exactly been beacons of scientific accuracy and review in this emergency. So it lines up, that one would also get caught in a widespread new policy banning vaccine disinformation.
The Republican leaders haven't exactly been beacons of scientific accuracy and review in this emergency. So it lines up, that one would also get caught in a widespread new policy banning vaccine disinformation.
Apparently this was completely by mistake and is fixed now.
I feel like the term "mistake" must mean something different to you than it does to at least me. Like, we know this isn't some kind of "oops": from just the screenshots in the one linked tweet, we know he filed an appeal and of held up in appeal. I would buy "error", but errors are something that people should attempt to minimize and aren't necessarily excusable with a hand-waive.
Why is he shocked, are we thinking about the same YouTube?
zzzeek(3)
What community standards were violated?
So Ron Paul learned that YouTube is not radically libertarian.
I see appeal was received, funny thing he's saying out of nowhere, similar thing happened on Facebook.
I see appeal was received, funny thing he's saying out of nowhere, similar thing happened on Facebook.
> So Ron Paul learned that YouTube is not radically libertarian.
Nothing more radically libertarian than exercising your private property rights to control what ideas are spread by use of that property.
The people complaining on the basis that private parties should not have the right to control what ideas are spread using their own property, OTOH, are clearly not radically libertarian.
Nothing more radically libertarian than exercising your private property rights to control what ideas are spread by use of that property.
The people complaining on the basis that private parties should not have the right to control what ideas are spread using their own property, OTOH, are clearly not radically libertarian.
Good point. Radically libertarian is a nightmare. In general, radically $ideology usually is a nightmare. Some cultures even have a word for moderation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagom
This is sad.
As much as I'm offended by many of the things Ron Paul does and stands for, I'm glad he's there. There's a lot of divergent thinking there. Outliers are good. I'd be terrified of a congress with a dozen Ron Pauls, but one is good to have around.
If I had my druthers, we'd have one of him in Congress. And one of each other extremist point of view, left-wing, right-wing, or just off in another direction.
As much as I'm offended by many of the things Ron Paul does and stands for, I'm glad he's there. There's a lot of divergent thinking there. Outliers are good. I'd be terrified of a congress with a dozen Ron Pauls, but one is good to have around.
If I had my druthers, we'd have one of him in Congress. And one of each other extremist point of view, left-wing, right-wing, or just off in another direction.
>Outliers are good
If American politicians had no outside interests than sure. It's currently a fundamentally flawed system: political games, corporate interests, religion and re-elections all cloud actual discussion and turns it into a show.
Nothing in house is driven by real data, both sides don't see the actual reality of what ever situation they're in. They take random data points to mislead voters to their position, each side having different areas they fudge the numbers on.
If American politicians had no outside interests than sure. It's currently a fundamentally flawed system: political games, corporate interests, religion and re-elections all cloud actual discussion and turns it into a show.
Nothing in house is driven by real data, both sides don't see the actual reality of what ever situation they're in. They take random data points to mislead voters to their position, each side having different areas they fudge the numbers on.
Another day another ban from YouTube, it is typical that they give no reason. Mark my words:
They will NEVER change. It will ONLY get worse.In any conversation that begins with framing Ron Paul as a principled libertarian who we can trust to have positions unbesmirched by the normal far-right talking points, we would do well to remember that he ran a deeply racist and homophobic newsletter for over two decades[1].
I'm not saying that he deserved to be banned from YouTube, since I have no idea what he (or others using his brand) put on their website. But I feel it's important to note that Ron Paul (and his son) have spent the better part of the last 30 years attempting to launder their reputations away from their reactionary roots.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_newsletters
I'm not saying that he deserved to be banned from YouTube, since I have no idea what he (or others using his brand) put on their website. But I feel it's important to note that Ron Paul (and his son) have spent the better part of the last 30 years attempting to launder their reputations away from their reactionary roots.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_newsletters
If you look at his twitter videos are clips from the channel, and they're all about berating any initiative to take a free and safe vaccine.
Must have spoken in greater lengths about negatives that don't have any scientific bases. Which honestly at this point makes sense to start punishing. Where most of the people against the vaccine (Tucker Carlson/Bret Weinstein) at this point that are popular have taken it but puppet different positions for building a brand and/or money.
Must have spoken in greater lengths about negatives that don't have any scientific bases. Which honestly at this point makes sense to start punishing. Where most of the people against the vaccine (Tucker Carlson/Bret Weinstein) at this point that are popular have taken it but puppet different positions for building a brand and/or money.
Yeah, I've been a fan of Paul for a long time. But his group has lost the plot since Covid happened. Perhaps an echo chamber effect.
Early on I was happy someone was fighting back against government overreach. This was around the time they were closing beaches in California, and showing photos in the news carefully taken at a 15 degree angle to make it look like people fifteen feet apart were on top of each other. It doesn't take a tremendous amount of science education to know folks don't get respiratory infections outdoors at a sunny, windy beach.
But that era is long over, govt has mostly stepped back.
Their channel however has since degenerated into sloppy, constant tone-deaf vaccination, CDC, and card bashing. We don't know everything, but one thing we do is that the major covid vaccines are orders of magnitude safer than getting it. We've had vax cards for school, etc for a long time as well. It's just an odd stance for someone with a medical background to take.
That said I wish the government would dial back its spending. Something Paul would do better to focus on. Not sure what to make of Youtube, but it's their network.
Early on I was happy someone was fighting back against government overreach. This was around the time they were closing beaches in California, and showing photos in the news carefully taken at a 15 degree angle to make it look like people fifteen feet apart were on top of each other. It doesn't take a tremendous amount of science education to know folks don't get respiratory infections outdoors at a sunny, windy beach.
But that era is long over, govt has mostly stepped back.
Their channel however has since degenerated into sloppy, constant tone-deaf vaccination, CDC, and card bashing. We don't know everything, but one thing we do is that the major covid vaccines are orders of magnitude safer than getting it. We've had vax cards for school, etc for a long time as well. It's just an odd stance for someone with a medical background to take.
That said I wish the government would dial back its spending. Something Paul would do better to focus on. Not sure what to make of Youtube, but it's their network.
> It doesn't take a tremendous amount of science studies to know folks don't get respiratory infections outdoors at a sunny, windy beach.
They do at the crowded indoor public restrooms at the beach which are kind of essential to keeping the beach open.
They do at the crowded indoor public restrooms at the beach which are kind of essential to keeping the beach open.
What crowded indoor restrooms?
I don't know of any offhand, they are all separate. Closing exceptions would have been much easier than thousands of miles of coastline.
I'm not seeing any good reasons here for this to be flagged.
What am I missing?
What am I missing?
Also, how to vote to unflag a post? Sometimes there is a vouch, but not available here.
Why is this flagged? Censorship by large tech platforms is an important issue here in the U.S. and abroad.