Patterico's Pontifications

1/5/2022

MTG Responds To Twitter Ban: America Has Been Attacked!

Filed under: General — Dana @ 8:23 am



[guest post by Dana]

I’m opening a fresh thread to continue discussing whether a social media company has the right to ban users for violating their terms of service. (See: Permanent deletion of Marjorie Taylor Greene’s personal Twitter account.) Here is her response to the decision:

“Twitter has attacked my district, it has attacked — I would say — our country as a whole by kicking a member of Congress off of their platform. And also, remember, they kicked off President Trump while he was a sitting United States president,” she told Newsmax, referencing when the company permanently banned the former president in the wake of the January 6 riot last year, citing risks of further violence.

Greene continued to lash out at Twitter, saying it’s “completely out of bounds.”

“No one elected them. No one put them in charge of what is information or what is misinformation,” Greene said. “And so I’m calling for everyone to leave Twitter because the best way to say, end someone’s power or end this Big Tech overlord’s power, is by leaving their platform and being unwilling to participate in their authoritarian control.”

MTG believes that she has a *right* to an active personal Twitter account and that Twitter, a private company, has no right to ban her for her repeated violations of the company’s prohibition against spreading misinformation about Covid-19. This despite repeated warnings… MTG’s congressional Twitter account remains active.

–Dana

106 Responses to “MTG Responds To Twitter Ban: America Has Been Attacked!”

  1. Good morning.

    Dana (5395f9)

  2. I don’t understand why she is so upset. In the near future, the new platform sponsored by Mr. Trump and managed by Mr. Nunes will be fully operational and I’m certain that she will be welcomed by its audience.

    John B Boddie (9efa1d)

  3. no, looks like she’s saying she has a right to ask everyone to leave twitter

    what i’ve heard is that twitter has a right to section 230 protection, cuz it’s in the constitution or something

    or first amendment something

    that’s more bonkers than anything MTG has said

    JF (e1156d)

  4. How dare the baker Twitter refuse to bake her cake Publish her lies. The government should punish them until they do what other people want them to do. We need to take control of the government to protect our freedom by forcing The Baker Twitter to do the responsible thing.

    End snark

    If you want a country where people can make/not make speech they’re going to use that speech in irresponsible ways; Like Twitter they’ll refuse make reasonable political statements and allow some unreasonable ones. They’ll make speech endorses horrible ideas. They’ll make songs like WAP. It’s not great, but so far it’s better then any of the alternatives I’ve seen proposed.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  5. JF, Section 203 isn’t what enables twitter to do this. The first amendment does that.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  6. @5 right, except the minor detail is that twitter wouldn’t exist without section 230

    it’s like saying the first amendment enabled Rush Limbaugh, not repeal of the fairness doctrine

    JF (e1156d)

  7. The way I see it, if little Margie has her constituents talking about how that mean Dorsey boy won’t share, they won’t ask what she has done for her District since they elected her.

    What has she done, anyway? Does anybody know?

    nk (1d9030)

  8. NK, are you not entertained?

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  9. Hurts to type this, but I think when I strip out the over heated rhetoric, I think MTG has a good idea. If a meaning number of people leave Twitter because of their moderation policies they will improve those moderation policies.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  10. What has she done, anyway? Does anybody know?

    Among the 16 pieces of legislation she has sponsored, four are articles of impeachment against President Biden; one to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Kyle Rittenhouse (after voting against the award to the Capitol Police); a bill to abolish the ATF; a bill to fire Dr. Anthony Fauci; a bill to ban vaccine passports (the We Will Not Comply Act; and two resolutions against Rep. Maxine Waters, none of which have gone anywhere.

    In short, she has accomplished nothing.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  11. I’d think Nancy Pelosi would put a call into the Twitter CEO and ask for Greene’s reinstatement.

    steveg (e81d76)

  12. I’d think Nancy Pelosi would put a call into the Twitter CEO and ask for Greene’s reinstatement.

    Why? The suspension involves MTG’s personal account, not her congressional account.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  13. @10 she voted against biden and pelosi’s boondoggle, meaning she’s done more than many calling themselves republicans

    JF (e1156d)

  14. I’ll leave it to you to figure out the details on why Ms. Pelosi might not want them to deplatform a political opponents idiocies, personal or official.

    steveg (e81d76)

  15. How dare … Twitter refuse to … Publish her lies.

    Finally! Someone who has the exact quote. What a relief.

    Please post it.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  16. Nice maneuver by Greene, attacking Twitter by falsely claiming she was attacked.
    I welcome her freeloading onto a more friendly platform.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  17. The slick part is now all NeverTrump blogs are giving MTG air time.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  18. “Please post it.”

    I don’t know why you keep insisting that other people do your homework, but here you go:

    https://www.tmz.com/2022/01/02/marjorie-taylor-greene-national-divorce-civil-war-days-before-twitter-ban/

    Davethulhu (17e89a)

  19. I’ll leave it to you to figure out the details on why Ms. Pelosi might not want them to deplatform a political opponents idiocies, personal or official.

    I’m sure Pelosi doesn’t care what happens to someone outside her caucus.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  20. People on the right complain when Rep. Tlaib sends off some anti-semitic rant, but deplatform her?
    Please, more speech, more publicity.

    steveg (e81d76)

  21. The tweet that apparently pushed her over the edge was about reported deaths from vaccines

    So TMZ doesn’t know either. Good job.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  22. TMZ adds this non-sourced bit:

    which she suggested was part of some big-government plot.

    Maybe she did. Who knows? But this is Dave’s homework now. Good luck verifying it, Dave.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  23. Never mind about MTG. I want to know why Jack Dorsey did not rescue all the drivers stranded on Virginia’s I-95 by the snowstorm. Don’t they have any rights?

    nk (1d9030)

  24. “So TMZ doesn’t know either. Good job.”

    Why are you like this? What’s wrong with you?

    Davethulhu (17e89a)

  25. You butted in with the “homework” dig. Now you want a better relationship?

    Why are you like that?

    Ultimately you produced a source that didn’t answer the question. That is the issue. Maybe stick with one thing at a time and our relationship might flourish.

    Do you have the definitive “lie” that MTG told or not?

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  26. “You butted in with the “homework” dig. Now you want a better relationship?”

    No, I do not. I just wonder why you enjoy this buffoon act you keep running.

    “Do you have the definitive “lie” that MTG told or not?”

    Yes, I do. It’s in the link I provided: “I get suspended for tweeting VAERS statistics” – MTG herself.

    Davethulhu (17e89a)

  27. Since you’re apparently unable to search for anything on your computer, here’s where she said that:

    https://gettr.com/post/plf6qx50e8

    Davethulhu (17e89a)

  28. I think that political speech should not be gated by private parties, and a company that is in the business of providing a national (and international) forum for political speech should not apply ITS political filters to same.

    Twitter (correctly) allows Iran and North Korea a platform for views I abhor, as well as their critics and some parody accounts. They have shown a high tolerance for deranged politics. But they block some things.

    What do they block? Well, primarily those things that US government officials have demanded that they block. Presidential statements, multiple congressional hearings, legislators making antitrust threats — the list of hints that they have been given is long. No one has quite come out and said “or else” but the boot is clear to see.

    Political speech is the core of “free speech” and it should never be blocked because the powers that be don’t like it.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  29. > Nice maneuver by Greene, attacking Twitter by falsely claiming she was attacked.

    Isn’t that her only schtick? She (and many of her fellow-travelers) appear to have a single talent: turning (often feigned) aggrievement into political power.

    Just the worst oppressed people in the whole wide world, who somehow find themselves in power and are still oh-so-very-oppressed.

    john (cd2753)

  30. Yes, I do. It’s in the link I provided: “I get suspended for tweeting VAERS statistics” – MTG herself.

    And that proves that she “lied” as Time claims?

    Here is the buffoonery in a nutshell.

    When MTG was booted The Continuum was unanimous that it was because MTG spread false information. I asked what exactly she said and was told that I need to look it up on my own. If I were to say that Liz Cheney spread false information The Continuum would lose its mind with a chorus of “PROVE IT!!” You know this.

    Time has said that she lied. I am asking for proof. You did not provide proof.

    Please step back, take a few breaths, and try to understand the hypocrisy. And then ask yourself if I really deserved the tone you set in our conversation.

    Why is it not Time’s responsibility to prove it?

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  31. I don’t understand why she is so upset. In the near future, the new platform sponsored by Mr. Trump and managed by Mr. Nunes will be fully operational and I’m certain that she will be welcomed by its audience.

    The “they can live in their ghetto, so what’s the problem?” isn’t completely satisfactory.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  32. So why would Twitter decide it’s a violation of their “rules” to ban someone for reporting official government statistics?

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  33. “And that proves that she “lied” as Time claims?”

    You said “Please post it”. You got your post. The rest is just sealioning.

    Davethulhu (17e89a)

  34. In short, she has accomplished nothing.

    This is the general problem with crusaders in the legislature. They are all about promoting some ideology and its issues, but they don’t do crap for their constituents and eventually the local car dealers and main street shop owners decide to back someone else.

    This happens again and again. It will happen to MTG and it will happen to AOC (especially when she’s on no committees in 2023). Someone else in their party will replace them after a primary where the issue is “what have you done for us lately?”

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  35. MTG does not deserve the attention she gets. Wackjob congressmen are nothing new. (Google Larry McDonald, one of the prior holders of MTG’s seat.) The fact MTG is gets not one but two threads shows our culture’s weakness.

    As for twitter banning her? Don’t care. It’s their property. MTG has a congressional website and CSPAN if she has some really vital message to get out there.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  36. “So why would Twitter decide it’s a violation of their “rules” to ban someone for reporting official government statistics?”

    When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.

    Davethulhu (17e89a)

  37. Thanks, Dave.

    You did your best and I appreciate the effort.

    No hard feelings.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  38. So why would Twitter decide it’s a violation of their “rules” to ban someone for reporting official government statistics?

    After some talking-to by government officials, Twitter added “Covid misinformation” to the list of things that were banned. You can misinform on any number of topics, but not this one.

    And she did not just quote VAERS statistics, but she alleged that all those reports were correctly attributed to the death jab vaccine, when the same site says “these are all unverified reports by unverified people” or some such blanket disclaimer.

    They post this “information” because there is a law that says they have to, but it’s mostly junk. It’s like if BLM had a “report racial discrimination here” page.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  39. I must admit though that MTG’s statement has no decent argument in it whatsoever. “No one elected them” is really not the way to attack their censorship. But then MTG is très stupid, and talking to her peers.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  40. And she did not just quote VAERS statistics, but she alleged that all those reports were correctly attributed to the death jab vaccine,

    In the screenshot provided in Dave’s TMZ link she said that “extremely high amounts of Covid vaccine deaths are ignored…”

    She did not say, in any of the links provided so far, that all the reports were attributed to the Covid vaccine.

    Is it really not fair to note the incredible increase in reported vaccine related injuries and deaths? And ask why this isn’t being addressed?

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  41. Has VAERS always been full of “mostly junk” information? That alone should prompt an investigation.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  42. Anyone notice the price of Arugula?

    mg (a3d47e)

  43. So all Twitter had to do was put a disclaimer that all VAERS information is self-reported as it’s always been.

    That’s never been an issue when it comes to the media and anonymous sourcing though?

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  44. “extremely high amounts of Covid vaccine deaths” is the lie, BuDuh. There’s no evidence for that statement.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  45. dave, good job finding the tweet….we can all rest easier now!

    After looking at it, it does not appear to be especially obnoxious. It would be interesting to compare it with other banned Covid commentary. Don’t get me wrong…..she’s a loon….and everyone knows what she’s doing….and in the end, that’s what the Twitter police are doing….it’s probably a cumulative effect of “stop already”.

    Personally, I have no idea how Twitter separates “garbage”. It almost seems like a hole where they keep digging……but it is their land….and it is their shovel…..so they can police how they want to police. And alternatives can act differently to win market share. If I ever thought that there was no other way for a congressman to communicate, I might shed a tear or two….but if she had anything interesting or useful to say, it would find its way paraphrased on Twitter….same with Trump. Nothing is being chilled. They are just trying to manipulate the faithful into false notions of oppression. If she wants to make the case that Covid vaccine deaths are under-reported, she should do it….and if it’s at all compelling, many people will see it and spread it.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  46. but if she had anything interesting or useful to say, it would find its way paraphrased on Twitter

    The good news is that a step will be saved as long as her comments come to this blog to be debated.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  47. So all Twitter had to do was put a disclaimer that all VAERS information is self-reported as it’s always been.

    That would have been too easy. This way people can pretend to know what she said and get angry.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  48. BuDuh, There are 2 lies in her statement:

    1. That the vaccine causes “extremely amount of covid vaccine deaths”.
    2. That these deaths are ignored by the government.

    She posts a screen shot of the VAERS data to support her lies. But the data doesn’t do that for reasons that have been discussed her before.

    I hope this clears up your confusion.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  49. It’s interesting that she links “being elected” with the ability to deem things “information” (good!) or “misinformation” (bad!) Twitter or any other private actor can’t make those distinctions, only the elected officials have the requisite degree of knowledge and authority.

    I’m old enough to remember when self-identified conservatives would have been quite troubled at the idea only the government knows what is best for you.

    JohnnyAgreeable (417278)

  50. “After Covid extremely high amounts of covid vaccine dearth’s are ignored…” is the exact wording. That’s a like. There aren’t extremely high amounts of covid vaccine deaths.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  51. Do you have a link showing the government’s proactive steps regarding VAERS reporting, Time?

    Also, your #1 is erroneous. That is not what she said. Check out Dave’s TMZ link.

    BuDuh (b4c2d7)

  52. I hope this clears up your confusion.

    Why do people talk like this?

    BuDuh (b4c2d7)

  53. Back later.

    BuDuh (b4c2d7)

  54. Whether what she said is a lie or violates Twitter’s policies is relevant only to the extent that you think Twitter’s moderation team is evenhanded, trustworthy, etc. I suspect they’re not. But so what? It’s irrelevant to their ability to kick her off the platform.

    For all we know, Twitter’s moderators are a bunch of nerds like me who really like Magic: the Gathering and are tired of her becoming more affiliated with the acronym MTG than the game. Or maybe they just hate her profile picture. It doesn’t matter one bit. They could have offered no explanation, some explanation, a full explanation, or a totally false explanation.

    JohnnyAgreeable (417278)

  55. Is it really not fair to note the incredible increase in reported vaccine related injuries and deaths? And ask why this isn’t being addressed?

    Tell me what your response would be to a government website that asked the public to post information on police shootings “attributed to racism” and left them there without any verification.

    Would you accept that this indicated an “incredible increase” in racist police shootings?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  56. Although Twitter might not have a problem with it.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  57. It’s irrelevant to their ability to kick her off the platform.

    JohnnyAgreeable (417278) — 1/5/2022 @ 12:04 pm

    This seems like a broad claim and I’m not sure I know the answer. Not related to MTG; but can twitter kick people off because of a protected class trait. That is, can they decide to boot an individual because of their race or gender?

    Do they even need an AUP or terms of service then? If they don’t need those why do they have them?

    frosty (f27e97)

  58. Would you accept that this indicated an “incredible increase” in racist police shootings?

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 1/5/2022 @ 12:11 pm

    Nope. But I’d expect Twitter to signal boost a tweet about that and manually push it up the trending list.

    frosty (f27e97)

  59. > Personally, I have no idea how Twitter separates “garbage”. It almost seems like a hole where they keep digging……but it is their land….and it is their shovel…..so they can police how they want to police. And alternatives can act differently to win market share.

    I think this is exactly right.

    If you’re curious about Trust & Safety (the industry term for the departments that, among other things, do moderation), I’d encourage you to google “site:techdirt.com moderation case study”. I suspect a lot of people will find this dry and boring, but it explains exactly how hard moderation calls are made in the real world, what happened, and associated analysis.

    If you read a few, you’ll start to understand why people in the field have a cliche: “content moderation at scale is impossible”.

    john (cd2753)

  60. And so I’m calling for everyone to leave Twitter because the best way to say, end someone’s power or end this Big Tech overlord’s power, is by leaving their platform and being unwilling to participate in their authoritarian control.

    A spot of sanity in a sea of nonsense.

    frosty (f27e97)

  61. This seems like a broad claim and I’m not sure I know the answer. Not related to MTG; but can twitter kick people off because of a protected class trait. That is, can they decide to boot an individual because of their race or gender?

    Yeah, it’s excessively broad in relation to this context where I think it’s clear they didn’t kick her off for something that would indeed be otherwise prohibited by law.

    As for why they have a TOS, I’m sure to some extent it’s because it binds the user to do (or not do) certain things, including, commonly, requirement to litigate anything through arbitration. It can of course bind the company, too, and I’m sure Twitter derives something of value from whatever data they pull from individual users. Obviously the contractual relationship is stronger when a user pays for a service. I’m not familiar enough with the transactional/contractual law there to have any real insight.

    JohnnyAgreeable (417278)

  62. And in a related story of America’s Twitters & Twits:

    Manhattan Won’t Prosecute Prostitution—But Will Still Go After Clients

    The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office said Wednesday it would stop prosecuting people arrested for prostitution—though not their clients—making it the latest locality to do so as part of a national shift in how the U.S. criminal justice system deals with sex work.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2021/04/21/manhattan-wont-prosecute-prostitution-but-will-still-go-after-clients/?sh=3a10e9145173

    See the pattern: storm the castle.

    “Listen, I could use a quick fifty. You got a commuter for me?” – Bree Daniel [Jane Fonda] ‘Klute’ 1971

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  63. If you don’t like twitter start your own social media. 1st amendment applies to government.

    asset (ad9a9b)

  64. Is rhetorical hyperbole considered a lie?
    I’d guess a court might see this as hyperbole, but Twitter doesn’t need to care what the courts think.

    This is interesting from the Journal of Pragmatics by Sheraysi Desai, Janet McLean, Claire Lawrence, Ruth Filik
    Abstract.
    This paper investigates how individuals perceive hyperbole in victim statements. Despite being one of the most commonly used literary tropes, the comprehension and cognition of hyperbole has been largely ignored in the psycholinguistics literature, and despite detailed literature outlining the emotional behaviour of victims, the use of figurative language has been largely ignored in the forensics literature. In the present study, two experiments were undertaken. In Experiment 1, 32 participants were recruited from groups with forensic experience or training. Participants were presented with 16 victim statements; eight contained a number of hyperbolic phrases and eight contained non-hyperbolic counterparts. After reading each statement, participants were asked to answer questions that would quantify perceived credibility on accounts of belief, sympathy, victim-impact, and likeability. The results from Experiment 1 showed that hyperbolic speech made a significant negative impact on all four credibility measures. In Experiment 2, 32 jury-eligible individuals performed the same task. Results from this experiment demonstrated that the use of hyperbole made testimonies more believable and made the victim seem more impacted. Results are discussed in terms of the real-world implications of using hyperbolic language, and individual differences in the comprehension of, and reaction to, figurative statements.

    steveg (e81d76)

  65. Buduh, here’s a direct quote of the portion I’m calling a lie.

    “After Covid extremely high amounts of covid vaccine dearth’s are ignored…”

    Do you feel that’s a true statement? I don’t. I think the assertion that there are extremely high amounts of covid vaccine deaths is a lie.

    I also think the assertion that government ignores information that’s reported about deaths is a lie. Are you saying it’s true?

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  66. Johnny, I think your statement is mostly correct, probably needs a caveat about protected classes. They can ban her for being annoying, but they can’t ban her for reasons of race, religion, ethnicity, age, etc.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  67. Twitter and Facebook seem to ban people the most because of medical claims.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  68. You and I read that completely differently, Time.

    If you look at the whole quote at Dave’s link, she is comparing reactions to vaccine injuries before and after Covid. The vaccine injuries that have been reported are “extremely high” now compared to the reporting before Covid. This is not a statement proclaiming that “ there are extremely high amounts of covid vaccine deaths.”

    I do not understand how you read it that way if you have read the whole quote. She is discussing a strict comparison in the treatment of data.

    BuDuh (289c81)

  69. Do they even need an AUP or terms of service then? If they don’t need those why do they have them?

    So they have you agreeing that they can do anything they want. It’s kinda one-sided.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  70. @68, What you claim she said isn’t what she actually said.

    Here’s her full quote

    “Before covid, reported deaths from vaccines were taken seriously and dangerous vaccines were stropped. After covid, extremely high amounts of covid vaccine deaths are ignore and the government forced vaccine mandates increase.”

    Nothing in there about data. She’s directly saying “extremely high amounts covid vaccine deaths.” She said “amounts”, not “reports”. It’s possible she just expressed herself badly and this is a mistake and not a lie. Can you provide any evidence of that?

    Also, by starting with ‘dangerous vaccines were stopped” she does nothing to support your theory that she’s talking about reporting. She’s talking about stoping dangerous vaccines, like the one she mention next, that she says has extremely high amounts of death.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  71. @69, remember the South Park where the apple agreement gave them the right to make you a human centipede?

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  72. SteveG, that was interesting. Thank you.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  73. “Before covid, reported deaths from vaccines…

    You are claiming that the reported thingys are not data?

    BuDuh (92c4e8)

  74. She’s talking about stoping dangerous vaccines…

    By using the VAERS database.

    Or were they stopping them by randomly guessing?

    BuDuh (4bfe05)

  75. Buduh, she lied.

    I’ll quote it for you again and bold the part that’s true.

    After covid, extremely high amounts of covid vaccine deaths are ignored and the government forced vaccine mandates increase.”

    She’s directly saying “extremely high amounts covid vaccine deaths.” She said “amounts”, not “reports”

    You want her to be talking about data. But that’s not what she said.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  76. *bold the the that’s UNtrue

    Sorry for the typo.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  77. Humor me with this hypothetical so I can get a grasp of your reasoning, Time.

    Let’s say that Covid doesn’t exist and, logically, a Covid vaccine doesn’t exist.
    Then let’s say that ever since VAERS started reporting there have been 1000 vaccine related deaths per year, with the exception of the most recent year which has 10,000 vaccine related deaths.

    Why do you make of this quote?

    Before this year , reported deaths from vaccines were taken seriously and dangerous vaccines were stropped.

    After this year began, extremely high amounts of vaccine deaths are ignored and the government forced vaccine mandates increase.”

    The only thing am see is the question of whether or not the higher deaths are ignored.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  78. She said “amounts”, not “reports”

    As a fly on the wall for this back and forth; I don’t see the distinction here. Reading the quote and rewording based on how I read it:

    1) there are vaccine deaths and the number is high
    2) when vaccine deaths were high in VAERS prior to covid it was treated as valid
    3) vaccine deaths in VAERS now is ignored based on claims that it is unreliable

    MTG isn’t making a complaint about the quality of data in VAERS and I don’t think BuDuh is saying that.

    The #2 is true. There have always been issues with VAERS but it wasn’t a problem until recently. The #3 is also true because VAERS data is dismissed in unreliable.

    It’s also true that there are reasons for both #2 and #3. But I think we’re wasting a lot of time on this because she was banned because of #1.

    frosty (f27e97)

  79. Buduh, when I read her words she’s saying vaccine deaths are high. It’s what she said In plain English. That fits with the context of the rest of the quote. Its consistent with other statements she’s made.

    It’s also untrue. Hence “lie”

    You asked me to show you how she lied. I did.

    I’m done with this now.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  80. Of course you are done with it.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  81. Is there some alternate universe where you acknowledge that what she said is untrue? I doubt it. There’s just an endless circle where you refuse to address the very simple point I made, as you have done repeatedly.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  82. That is because you conflate things that are obviously separate.

    Try my hypothetical out.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  83. “The #2 is true. There have always been issues with VAERS but it wasn’t a problem until recently. The #3 is also true because VAERS data is dismissed in unreliable.”

    Neither of these are true.

    #2 The numbers for the covid vaccines are much higher because the healthcare providers are required by law to reporting “Serious Adverse Events regardless of whether the reporter thinks the vaccine caused the Adverse Event.” For previous vaccines, this was encouraged rather than required.

    #3 Unreliable isn’t a good characterization. Rather the data is unaudited. Reported information is evaluated and then you get reports like this: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2784015
    This is not a problem with VAERS. It a problem with people using VAERS for purposes for which it isn’t designed.

    Davethulhu (17e89a)

  84. On the Vaers numbers,
    Medical providers are supposed to ask if a patient has recently been vaccinated and use the table below to determine if the adverse event is within the guidelines.
    If you don’t want to read it, the most common reporting timframes are within 7 days or within 15 days

    https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_Following_Vaccination.pdf

    There are over 10,000 deaths that have occurred and reported to VAERS as having been within guidelines.
    VAERS has only certified the 9 J&J deaths as directly traceable to a recent vaccination. This rest are considered to be traceable to a recent vaccination but not caused by the vaccination at this point.

    I will say that the people who are saying thousands have been killed with the vaccines may not be wrong, they just don’t have the data yet. In the USA, the number is probably more than 9, less than 10,000. The 10,000 have died within 7-15 days of being vaccinated and their MD reported it to VAERS.
    There have been 513M Vaccination shots given in the USA and the number given is that only 10,000 of the 513M have died within 7-15 days of getting an injection and were reported to VAERS as being within guidelines.
    People drop dead in the USA at a pace around 27,800 a day and the vaccination rate is about 1.4M per day

    steveg (e81d76)

  85. Deaths do not come in amounts. They come in numbers. Ignorant hicks!

    nk (1d9030)

  86. ………
    In September 2004, a study from the UK showed no association between thimerosal exposure and autism . At the same time, a review of ten epidemiological studies of autism and thimerosal found that the few studies that found an association between thimerosal exposure and autism had serious methodological flaws. Chief among these flaws was using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) as a source of data.

    The chief problem with the VAERS data is that reports can be entered by anyone and are not routinely verified. To demonstrate this, a few years ago I entered a report that an influenza vaccine had turned me into The Hulk. The report was accepted and entered into the database.

    Because the reported adverse event was so… unusual, a representative of VAERS contacted me. After a discussion of the VAERS database and its limitations, they asked for my permission to delete the record, which I granted. If I had not agreed, the record would be there still, showing that any claim can become part of the database, no matter how outrageous or improbable.
    ………

    Source

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  87. The chief problem with the VAERS data is that reports can be entered by anyone and are not routinely verified. To demonstrate this, a few years ago I entered a report that an influenza vaccine had turned me into The Hulk.

    That is funny!

    norcal (d4ed1d)

  88. According to my last post, I thought they came in sums

    I f****ing hate math because it hates me

    steveg (e81d76)

  89. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  90. Deaths do not come in amounts. They come in numbers. Ignorant hicks!

    Some deaths are bigger than others.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  91. there have been 514M individual jabs in the USA which amounts to 514M chances to die from a vaccine and also 514M chances to die of some other cause within 7-15 days of the injection, but somehow only 10,000 have died with vaccine onboard from shock or any other of the criteria and only 9 are verified as coaused by vaccine.

    Its not a conspiracy I’m looking for, but the number (9) seems low

    steveg (e81d76)

  92. The chief problem with the VAERS data is that reports can be entered by anyone and are not routinely verified. To demonstrate this, a few years ago I entered a report that an influenza vaccine had turned me into The Hulk. The report was accepted and entered into the database.

    Odd.

    Politfact dug into the story. The first part matches his blog post, but in a follow up he decided it was a measles vaccine that got him hulking, not the influenza vaccine.. They also noted that there is no primary evidence that he is telling the truth:

    n a July 2005 web post, Dr. James R. Laidler wrote: “The chief problem with the VAERS data is that reports can be entered by anyone and are not routinely verified. To demonstrate this, a few years ago I entered a report that an influenza vaccine had turned me into The Hulk. The report was accepted and entered into the database.

    “Because the reported adverse event was so… unusual,” Laidler wrote, “a representative of VAERS contacted me. After a discussion of the VAERS database and its limitations, they asked for my permission to delete the record, which I granted. If I had not agreed, the record would be there still, showing that any claim can become part of the database, no matter how outrageous or improbable.”

    We did not find primary documentation of Laidler’s described VAERS submission though he reaffirmed such actions in a phone interview. Laidler, of Portland, Ore., said he recalled submitting a report in the early 2000s stating that after a measles vaccination, his skin turned green, his muscles grew and he started having rage problems–all symptoms intended to show he was becoming the Hulk. Laidler said his greater point, in the face of others who were citing VAERS entries as an indication the measles vaccination causes autism, was that anyone may report any adverse effect of a vaccination to the program.

    https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/may/11/bill-zedler/bill-zedler-insists-program-doesnt-collect-wide-ra/

    Nonetheless, the politifact article, in it’s entirety, does a pretty good job making a point that is irrelevant to MTG’s tweet.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  93. 86.

    a few years ago I entered a report that an influenza vaccine had turned me into The Hulk.

    A few years before July 27, 2005. Maybe now at least about 20 years ago.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  94. The last line of the VAERS form:

    Knowingly filing a false VAERS report with the intent to mislead the Department of Health and Human Services is a violation of Federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1001) punishable by fine and imprisonment.

    https://vaers.hhs.gov/pdf/VAERSForm_Sep2021.pdf

    Dr Comedian’s story seems less likely now. Maybe lying on a federal form was OK back then?

    That being said, MTG’s point really hits the nail on the head since these reports are apparently from lying liars from Liarsville.

    Why isn’t the government cracking down?

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  95. nk @23.

    I want to know why Jack Dorsey did not rescue all the drivers stranded on Virginia’s I-95 by the snowstorm

    Jack Dorsey is no longer running Twitter.

    https://twitter.com/jack/status/1465347002426867720

    And Glenn Youngkin is not yet Governor of Virginia. He takes office January 15.

    Any possible incompetence is on Ralph Northam’s head.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  96. 18 U.S. Code § 1001 – Statements or entries generally

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
    (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
    (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
    (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

    shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
    (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
    (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
    (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
    (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

    This Dr sounds like he has Insurrectionist in his blood. What a dope.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  97. https://www.science.org/content/article/antivaccine-activists-use-government-database-side-effects-scare-public

    They think there are not too many actual fraudulent reports, (although who knows now – I think it would be detectable because of suspicious patterns) but with people in all conditions of health being vaccinated, there could be misleading conclusions that could be drawn.

    They remove clearly fake ones, and look for real correlations and don’t want to discourage people from reporting things. (so no prosecutions or threats of them)

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  98. “hat being said, MTG’s point really hits the nail on the head since these reports are apparently from lying liars from Liarsville.”

    The only point is the one on top of MTG’s head.

    Davethulhu (17e89a)

  99. @28

    I think that political speech should not be gated by private parties, and a company that is in the business of providing a national (and international) forum for political speech should not apply ITS political filters to same.

    Who do you want to decide what is and what isn’t political speech? If not private parties who then do you want the gatekeeper ie moderator to be? The government?

    Purplehaze (34bae0)

  100. LOL, Dave!!!

    BuDuh (eee393)

  101. Political speech is the core of “free speech” and it should never be blocked because the powers that be don’t like it.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 1/5/2022 @ 10:53 am

    That’s not what free speech means. Core American free speech is the right of every individual and private entity to say or not say what it wants, free from government interference. Political speech does trigger heightened scrutiny into whether a government action is permissible, but it neither imposes greater obligation on private actors nor transforms them into government ones.

    You want to argue for a constitutional amendment to limit what Twitter can censor? Be my guest, but it won’t go anywhere.

    You want to argue for repeal of Section 230? That stands a much better chance, but (1) I doubt you’ll like the result (I know I won’t), and (2) it still won’t deprive Twitter of its First Amendment right to censor whatever it wants.

    lurker (59504c)

  102. They are not silencing political speech. They are not silencing religious speech (in the free countries, anyway)

    They re silencing medical speech, especially when they think they had got them dead to rights. And MTG lost her access to Twitter over medical speech. (saying thousands have died from being vaccinated against Covid and attempting to cite sources generally regarded as legitimate.)

    Rather than explaining what’s wrong with that argument, or saying that she says many wrong things, they just terminated her account. Now what’s wrong is that the VAERS reporting system is not what someone unfamiliar with it might think it was.

    It generates many unrelated reports of medical problems connected to vaccinations, although careful study might give clues as to real effects.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  103. You want to argue for repeal of Section 230?

    God no. That would be stupid. HOWEVER, that section may not give them a save harbor when they censor things that are not indecent. There are good arguments that “otherwise objectionable” in the list was intended to refer to other items mentioned in the CDA, not to anything else at all.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  104. lurker,

    You treat this as private and I do not. That is the difference. This is the public square, regardless of who actually owns it. The set out to be a business creating a the public speaking area, so they did this intentionally. There are several decisions relating to what you can control, on your own property, once it becomes a public meeting place.

    The US Supreme Court recognizes this, and struck down a law where the STATE prevented a convicted child molester from accessing the Internet. 8-0. Packingham v. North Carolina (2017)

    “It is a crucially important channel of political communication,” Justice Elena Kagan said. “It is embedded in our culture as ways to communicate and ways to exercise our constitutional rights.”

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that being restricted from social media would represent “being cut off from a very large part of the marketplace of ideas. And the First Amendment includes not only the right to speak, but the right to receive information.”

    “A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the Court’s majority opinion.

    https://njsbf.org/2020/05/12/access-to-social-media-protected-by-first-amendment/

    Yes, this does only say the STATE cannot do this, but it also establishes the Internet as the central public forum and social media as a critical part of it. I recognize that I am arguing ahead of the court, but I expect that the court will get here soon.

    I’m not alone:

    Justice Thomas has, in effect, provided a response to a First Amendment challenge to such a common carriage law. In doing so, he joins critics from the left in stepping outside the libertarian paradigm that gives private companies the unfettered right to decide what is said on the media platforms they operate. He goes to the opposite extreme and says that social media companies should not be treated as speakers at all for First Amendment purposes. Rather, like telephone companies, they should be reconceptualized as neutral, passive conveyors of the speech of others.

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2021/04/09/justice-thomas-sends-a-message-on-social-media-regulation/

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  105. I recognize that I am arguing ahead of the court

    That’s all I’m saying. The law is what it is, not what you want it to be. Twitter is not state action.

    but I expect that the court will get here soon. I’m not alone

    You did notice that Thomas’ dicta wasn’t joined by any of the other justices? You’re welcome to believe the current 8-1 Court will suddenly do a 180, overturning decades of SCOTUS jurisprudence to see things your way. I’d take that bet for real money.

    lurker (59504c)

  106. This is the public square, regardless of who actually owns it.

    Ironically, radical lefty Sarah Jeong makes the same argument in “The Internet of Garbage,” but goes on to explain how these Tech Trust firms can use the “private property” designation to justify censorship. Lefties have done on reddit boards have also been notorious for practicing entryism in various non-political boards, turning them into politically dominant forums, then taking on janny duties for free for the express purpose of shutting out non-leftist arguments.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2075 secs.