> In addition to down-ranking sites associated with disinformation, we also often place news modules and information boxes at the top of DuckDuckGo search results (where they are seen and clicked the most) to highlight quality information for rapidly unfolding topics.
> destruction of evidence that is relevant to a case .. or an inference that such evidence can be unfavorable. ... victim of the spoliation [the state] must prove that the destruction was intentional [it was] and also the destroyed evidence was relevant to the issue ...
Literally what Google is doing, if Google deleted location data of all the J6 rioters this wouldn't even be a question if they deleted evidence, because its abortion, everyones ok with it, double standards.
> in democratic countries the best vaccine for the job was chosen.
thats a bit of a white washing job, there was 1000's of posts about the risk/effectiveness of Astrazeneca and the JnJ vaccine that were removed from social media, labeled as misinformation (but were accurate).
The biggest message was "the best vaccine is the first one available", so while we eventually gravitated to Pfizer/Moderna ... it was based on supply and not "the science".
I don't doubt China is hiding info, but America was not exactly a light in the darkness as you're painting it to be.
It was Ottawa, and Trudeau used all same rhetoric Putin is using now, calling them Nazis[1], denying the leaders bail[2], charged with mischief, and pushing propaganda thru state media.
Like the story of truckers attempting to burn down an apartment building[3], that turned out to be completely false, but used to prove violence and justify the emergencies act.
> MIT told him it was canceling the lecture to “avoid controversy” after students and recent alumni demanded he be uninvited because he’d recently argued academic evaluations should be based on merit.
Damn, I assumed he said something racist maybe, but this is what the issue was about, I just lost all respect for MIT.
They 100% did, an article from 2011/2013 about the government distributing low cost appliances[1] and free houses[2]. They were getting tons of free and cheap stuff and the people were celebrating it.
your link shows where it was approved, those aren't usage numbers,
> ... there should be a preference for an alternative to the AstraZeneca [1]
> Canada’s largest province says it will stop giving out first doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine due to concerns over its link to rare blood clots [2]
> More nations halt use of AstraZeneca's COVID vaccine citing clots [3]
> ... AfD didn't have enough engaged supporters, so they were open to hire ... Flyerservice Hahn, a fictitious company.
> @politicalbeauty set up a fictitious website, without registering a company ... created fake Linkedin ... contacting regional offices of the AfD with very low ball offers to hand out fliers
> Close to the election they slowly realized that no flyers were handed out, but @politicalbeauty kept stalling them
---
I don't know the German system, but in many countries this would be fraud, and possibly election interference since the goal was political suppression.
> Portland City Council stands with the people who may one day face difficult decisions about pregnancy, and we respect their right to make the best decision for themselves.
Also Portland, "Portland to city employees: Get COVID-19 vaccine or lose your job" [1]
And you should understand the law, techdirt bases is "What matters is solely the content in question. If that content is created by someone else, the website hosting it cannot be sued over it.", which is only true as long as you "do not exercise significant editorial control" from Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy [1].
> the court held that because Prodigy was exercising editorial control over the messages that appeared on its bulletin boards through its content guidelines and software screening program, Prodigy was more like a "publisher" than a "distributor" and therefore fully liable for all of the content on its site.
Not true for companies protected under Section 230, in order to maintain their liability shield they are supposed to remain platform neutral [1].
A company should not be able to act like a publisher and determine what stays on their service and when someone sues them for libel they claim they're not a publisher and hide behind the shield.
> At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
On a side note, can anyone explain why covid mandates are fine but abortion laws are evil? Those groups have heavy overlap of supporters and both are about bodily autonomy.
It's well supported that the combination of lock down isolation[1] in addition to the free CERB money resulted in the spike of drug abuse / suicide deaths[2].
Interesting, illegal under HIPAA rules but possible precedent under the Affordable Care Act?
With Obamacare:
> Although insurers can’t charge more for health status, they can charge up to 50% more for smoking status [1].
Under HIPAA:
> What are HIPAA's protections from discrimination?
> ... you may not be charged more than similarly situated individuals based on any health factors. [2]
Vaccines are a health status, I would think this move by Delta is illegal, but Covid Emergency Powers has given the green light for all types of discrimination and broken laws.