Sorry, can’t find any better sources for this.

The animator then asked Maher what the “downside” of “getting a vaccine” was, which caused the comedian to go on an anti-vax tirade.

“The fact that you the fact that you don’t even have a clue what’s the cost of getting a vaccine that you don’t know the answer to that. You completely want to shut your eyes to the fact that there are repercussions to all medical interventions, including a vaccine, all vaccines,” he ranted. “They come, they say side effects, just like every medication does. You can see it in the literature. They can’t write it on their back on the vaccine. So you have to dig them. And of course, there is a vaccine court because so many people have been injured.”

    • PopcornTin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The White House press secretary has said they worked with tech companies to ban misinformation. The Twitter Files showed many government agencies giving them guidance to for the rules around covid misinformation, then giving lists of tweets to take action on for breaking said terms and conditions. Like or not what goofy things people thought about covid, the government telling them to shut down these posts is clearly against the first amendment.

      • thalience@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The actual information released in “the Twitter files” showed the opposite of what musky’s pet propagandists said it did.

        You seem to actually admit that what happened was identifying posts that violated the terms and conditions of private companies. No demands or threats were issued.Does the government have no right to speak truth?

        If a government agency notices a lethal hazard in your town that doesn’t technically violate the law, should they be prohibited from telling you and your neighbors about the danger?

    • xor
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      things change over time.
      for SOME TIME, it was treated as laughable misinformation, and directly censored… later it wasn’t. (check out coverage on Jon Stewart when he talked about it when you weren’t supposed to)
      at a LATER TIME it was no longer bad to talk about it.
      sorry you have no idea what’s being discussed here.

      im sorry if you really think that there was no censorship involving covid discussions online.
      and i dont really care how silly you are.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        They weren’t censored very well, clearly. And considering a lot of COVID misinformation was telling you to inject horse dewormer instead of getting a vaccine, I wish it was censored better. In a public health emergency, I’m pretty okay with requiring statements to be scientifically and medically sound.

        Second, it was misinformation at the time. Researchers and the general scientifically community believed the evidence pointed to other theories. It wasn’t until later when we had more evidence that it emerged as a serious possibility.

        That’s how science works. Unless an idea is supported by clear and sound evidence, it’s untrue. The lab leak theory can be misinformation at one point in time and viable at another point in time – if I predicted heavy snowfall on a 74 degree day in June, it would very obviously be wrong. If I predict it for a 20 degree day in December however, it’s actually plausible. It blows my mind that this is a novel concept for some people.

        • xor
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Second, it was misinformation at the time.

          what??? no it wasn’t. it was a plausible hypothesis.

          That’s how science works.

          that is not how science works. science works by a free exchange of ideas

          Unless an idea is supported by clear and sound evidence, it’s untrue.

          no. something can be completely true but not at all supported by evidence. You are confusing “truth” with “a broader scientific belief”

          The lab leak theory can be misinformation at one point in time and viable at another point in time –

          that doesn’t make sense, and isn’t what “misinformation” even means.

          if I predicted heavy snowfall on a 74 degree day in June, it would very obviously be wrong. If I predict it for a 20 degree day in December however, it’s actually plausible.

          well that’s the stupidest analogy i’ve ever read… the “date” and “temperature” of the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis didn’t change.

          It blows my mind that this is a novel concept for some people.

          it blows my mind that you’re patting yourself on the back for such utter drivel

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re assuming it’s true and working backwards from there.

            Science is not just a free exchange of ideas. It gives no quarter to unfounded ideas and pseudoscience. You’re welcome to propose ideas, but the scientific community can and will tear them apart unless there’s a strong basis.

            If there is evidence, it must in general point to the truth.

            • xor
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’re assuming it’s true and working backwards from there.

              you’re talking out of your ass, and im done talking to you