One Citizen Speaking

IS TWITTER THE POLITICAL MEME KILLER TO AVOID DEMOCRAT EMBARRASSMENT IN 2022 CAMPAIGN CYCLE?

How progressive is Agrawal?

Twitter just admitted that they are no longer a Section 230 protected “platform” for third-party content over which they have no control but are a “publisher” that exerts significant control over third-party content that appears on their platform.

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

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.

(2) Civil liability

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

From Twitter’s new Privacy Policy…

Sharing private media

[OCS: Exactly what is private media? And, what is private media in the context of investigative journalism?]

When we are notified by individuals depicted, or by an authorized representative, that they did not consent to having their private image or video shared, we will remove it. This policy is not applicable to media featuring public figures or individuals when media and accompanying Tweet text are shared in the public interest or add value to public discourse.

[OCS: Determining the public interest of content and whether or not it adds value to the public discourse is a “publishing” decision. Especially when it is based on non-objective (subjective) criteria such as political affiliation or the official government position which is often propaganda to support the administration in power.]

However, if the purpose of the dissemination of private images of public figures or individuals who are part of public conversations is to harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence them, we may remove the content in line with our policy against abusive behavior. Similarly, private nude images of public individuals will continue to be actioned under our non-consensual nudity policy.

[OCS: One could make the case that the disclosure of ANY factual information can be construed as embarrassing, harassing or intimidating behavior. Especially if that information is speculative or part of a hypothetical scenario.]

Expanding our private information policy to include media

As part of our ongoing efforts to build tools with privacy and security at the core, we’re updating our existing private information policy and expanding its scope to include “private media.” Under our existing policy, publishing other people's private information, such as phone numbers, addresses, and IDs, is already not allowed on Twitter. This includes threatening to expose private information or incentivizing others to do so.

[OCS: Private information is a subjective classification which can be expanded to fit almost any circumstance. Where are the definitions?]

There are growing concerns about the misuse of media and information that is not available elsewhere online as a tool to harass, intimidate, and reveal the identities of individuals. Sharing personal media, such as images or videos, can potentially violate a person’s privacy, and may lead to emotional or physical harm. The misuse of private media can affect everyone, but can have a disproportionate effect on women, activists, dissidents, and members of minority communities. When we receive a report that a Tweet contains unauthorized private media, we will now take action in line with our range of enforcement options. <Source: Twitter>

[OCS: Why is Twitter not being inclusive of all individuals and suggesting that information can have a disproportionate on women, minorities, activists, etc. when it can have a disproportionate effect on anyone? Virtue signaling?]

Bottom line…

The revolution will not be reported.

One only needs to consider the issue of Hunter Biden’s laptop, Project Veritas’s revelations, and Andy Ngo’s exposure of Black Lives Matter and Antifa to see what Twitter is contemplating – censoring content or canceling individuals whose content runs counter to Twitter’s corporate masters.

The suppression of the Biden laptop information from a credible journalist source, The New York Post, was deliberate interference with a presidential election and post-election polling indicated it would have possibly altered the outcome. For footage like that taken by Andy Ngo of BLM rioters, this footage would likely be suppressed due to the presence of “private” individuals who did not provide consent.

Time to tell Twitter to stick it! Consider dropping Twitter in favor of happening sites like Gettr, Parler, and Mewe.

REVOKE SECTION 230 PROTECTIONS FROM ANY PLATFORM THAT ATTEMPTS TO CONTROL FREE SPEECH OTHER THAN LEGALLY ACTIONABLE IMMINENT THREATS AND CALLS FOR VIOLENCE.

We are so screwed when community communications are interrupted by corporatized media platforms.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

Permalink | Comments (0)

DR. OZ: PROGRESSIVE GRIFTER TO RUN AS A REPUBLICAN?

Capitalizing on his name recognition, millions of followers, and friendship with Oprah, celebrity physician and TV show host Dr. Mehmet Oz has announced his candidacy as a Republican in a run for the U.S. Senate representing Pennsylvania.

The Federal Trade Commission has sued a Florida-based operation that capitalized on the green coffee diet fad by using bogus weight loss claims and fake news websites to market the dietary supplement Pure Green Coffee. Popularized on the syndicated talk show The Dr. Oz Show, green coffee bean extract was touted as a potent weight loss treatment that supposedly burns fat.

The FTC alleged that weeks after green coffee was first promoted on The Dr. Oz Show, the defendants behind Pure Green Coffee – Nicholas Congleton, Paul Pascual, Bryan Walsh, and the companies they control – began selling their Pure Green Coffee extract, charging about $50 for a one-month supply. They marketed the dietary supplement through ads on their own sales websites. The sites featured footage from The Dr. Oz Show, supposed consumer endorsements, and purported clinical proof that dieters could lose weight rapidly without changing their diet or exercise regimens. The defendants also ran paid banner and text ads that appeared on search engines and <Source>

Another Dr. Fauci?

From Salon Magazine…

Physicians urge Columbia to drop its "unacceptable" affiliation with pseudoscience promoter Dr. Oz

Oz, the doctors say, is guilty of "outrageous conflicts of interest," "flawed judgements," or both

In a letter addressed to Dean of the Faculties of Health Sciences and Medicine, ten physicians, surgeons and professors accuse Oz of being "guilty of either outrageous conflicts of interest or flawed judgements about what constitutes appropriate medical treatments, or both." They refer to articles calling Oz out for his misleading, fear-mongering reports about arsenic in apple juice and genetically modified foods -- the doctor, they write, "has repeatedly shown disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine, as well as baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops."

"Worst of all," the letter continues, "he has manifested an egregious lack of integrity by promoting quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain."

From the British Medical Journal…

Televised medical talk shows—what they recommend and the evidence to support their recommendations: a prospective observational study

Investigators randomly selected 40 episodes of each of The Dr Oz Show and The Doctors from early 2013 and identified and evaluated all recommendations made on each program. A group of experienced evidence reviewers independently searched for, and evaluated as a team, evidence to support 80 randomly selected recommendations from each show.

For recommendations in The Dr Oz Show, evidence supported 46%, contradicted 15%, and was not found for 39%. Believable or somewhat believable evidence supported 33% of the recommendations on The Dr Oz Show. On average, The Dr Oz Show had 12 recommendations per episode. The most common recommendation category on The Dr Oz Show was dietary advice (39%). The magnitude of benefit was described for 17% of the recommendations on The Dr Oz Show.

Conclusions Recommendations made on medical talk shows often lack adequate information on specific benefits or the magnitude of the effects of these benefits. Approximately half of the recommendations have either no evidence or are contradicted by the best available evidence. Potential conflicts of interest are rarely addressed. The public should be skeptical about recommendations made on medical talk shows.

The kiss of death?

It appears Dr. Oz is confirming that he is a clueless schmuck and an aisle-hopping RINO (Republican In Name Only).

Should he choose to enter the electoral fray, Dr. Oz already has two icons whose political path he said he would like to follow: California bodybuilder-turned-actor-turned governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, whom he calls a “wonderful” guy and a “good chess player too” (and whose picture sits proudly in Dr. Oz’s office alongside a bottle of wine the Governator gave him for moderating his health summit in July 2006); and Teddy Roosevelt, the original boot-strapping individualist.

“Teddy Roosevelt to me was the ideal Republican,” he said. “He was someone who felt strongly about the need for individuals to make the place work better without having someone tell them how to do it. But they had an obligation to do that as well. It wasn’t a favor for the country; it was an obligation as Americans. <Source>

Californians will long remember Schwarzenegger, the corrupt, ineffective, wannabe Kennedy, and faux environmentalist, who gave us record-high taxes, schtupped the maid, painted out California’s First Lady on the official portrait, commuted between Sacramento and Santa Monica almost daily on a private jet, and commuted the sentence of the murderous son of a high-ranking Democrat as a political favor as he walked out the door. A master of fundraising, dark money, and slush funds.

History reveals that Teddy Roosevelt was an aggressive progressive, seeking to bring “radical transformation” to the nation. He may have been the last progressive president who also exhibited a modicum of commonsense.

Bottom line…

Pennsylvania and the country do not need another corrupt egomaniacal celebrity aisle-hopper who will advance the progressive communist democrat agenda with the support of his uber-liberal Hollywood pals. He may be a good cardiac surgeon, but the country does not need a surgeon; it needs a patriot.

We are so screwed when celebrities bollix-up politics.