UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

This is how well the Right vets its sources in the age of Trump. You can literally believe in demon sperm and be a right-wing hero/expert if you say masks are bad and hydroxy is good.

(no message)

social media platforms.

(no message)

In short, I would not be ok with Twitter wanted to ban LGBTQ posters, although I would be ok with Catholic.com wanted to ban those same posters. So, you misunderstand my views.

But, here is the long answer that merits discussion.

Internet companies are like restaurants or other services. We don't allow either of them to discriminate on the basis of race. But, we do allow them to discriminate on the bases of political views or religious views sometimes. It may be time to reconsider how we handle this. Surely if we can force a baker to provide services to people the baker doesn't agree with, we can force internet providers to provide services to people they don't agree with.

On the one hand, I think of UHND as a private service, totally under control of the moderators. I don't begrudge management by the owners of the site. I think of it like a private club.

And, there are sites like Catholic.com, which clearly have a viewpoint, and I don't begrudge them restricting posts to only those above a certain level of decency and honest seeking. If there were a transgender site, I wouldn't begrudge them kicking me off if I went there and started pointing out how antiscience they are. Private services, right?

But, then there are sites like Google, Twitter, Reddit and many others. They have become, essentially, utilities. Sort of like the old Usenet, which was totally content neutral--anything went on Usenet, and that was kind of nice. Everyone had a voice. When sites like that begin discriminating on the basis of religious views, or political views, then maybe they cross a line that should be protected. I think it is time to extend the First Amendment to cover sites like that...to expand the 1st Amendment rights to include private actors.

Much thought needs to go into how to do it properly, but I think the time has come to have the conversation.

It used to be that only the government had the reach and power to silence people, so the 1st Amendment was sufficient to protect freedom of speech. And, to DRO's point, we all have said at some point, "Not the government, so punishment by that speech by a private individual is ok." But, now, private organizations and private individuals have the power to take people's livelihoods away from them using the Internet. This is a new development. I think that needs to be stopped somehow. We can't keep consoling ourselves that just because the government isn't abusing someones speech or religious rights, it is ok to abuse those rights, especially when we are talking about a service which has become a commodity or utility used by society for basic communication.

It used to be that private discrimination was ok, and blacks could be barred access to facilities or restaurants or the like, but we expanded Constitutional protections to that level. It was the right thing to do, and we no longer say, "That is a private restaurant, they can discriminate if they want to do so." It is time to do this for communication and the internet.

Thoughts?

If they regulate any content, then they need to be held accountable for all content.

(no message)

There are alternative ND forums to go to.

They are used by a small portion of the country.

I'm open to discussion about that.

Either way, I think it is time to extend the First Amendment to private behavior like we have done for the Civil War Amendments.

Obviously, there have to be limits. The work place has to be able to restrict. Topic specific forums need to be able to restrict. But, utility forums like twitter should not be able to restrict. And, if I am photographed wearing a BLM Sucks shirt on my private time, or if I peaceably protest for BLM, I should be able to sue my employer if they fire me for that.

(no message)

She and Baron have a practice together and it's flourishing - at least while their patients are still alive.

It’s between the scientists and the morons.

I’ll trust the former, thanks.

away from us (Whitmer told pharmacists not to dispense it and threatened Dr's who used it in any setting. It should be an off label use. i have said this from the start. The debate wasn't solved yet among DR's, but it was vilified in the media because Trump was given it BY HIS D.

Just admit you were mislead on this and move on.

(no message)

Probably makes perfect sense to QAnon types, anti-vaxxers, UFO enthusiasts.

Not a conspiracy theory at all.

(no message)

Goddam FDA and its “rules,” eh?

(no message)

Still think the data and information isn't complete bullshit?

Even Frank is teetering below.

I do know that apparently it does have side effects, so before pushing it on the masses as a wonder drug, I would want to be damn sure it worked. So far the evidence appears to be to the contrary but I’m willing to keep an open mind on it. I do expect that there will be real tested therapeutics out there very soon.

Hydroxychloroquine ineffective

Link: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine/hydroxychloroquine-ineffective-against-mild-covid-19-study-shows-idUSKCN24H2YC

smoke crack.

as it doesn’t get in the way of development and approval of effective therapeutics.

(no message)

Someone ask Stella if alien DNA helps in this case.

I dare you! LOL