Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

It is a mystery

why would this doctor and many others keep posting its benefits

theres no money here so whats the motive

one side keeps saying the other is trying to hide the favorable affects so the country will remain in a shut down

the other side says this drug will kill you so dont take it

I have no idea but if we find out later that this drug could have saved thousands of lives it will be huge burden to bare for one of the two sides

The motive would be attention and notoriety. A lot of family medicine can be word of mouth. I've lived in a town for five years, and when I'm looking for a new regular doctor, I'm still gonna just ask someone I think might have a good knowledge base. 

So if you get on the local news for having the coronavirus cure, you're gonna be the most known doctor in wherever it is in Texas. And that will mean lots of benefits (plus some folks just plain enjoy the attention).

I don't know if it works and at least read that there are nebulous side affects. Obviously most people don't have serious side affects, otherwise it wouldn't be deemed safe at all. And I don't know the medical history of how fast it take people to adopt things. Maybe it's full of moments when non-reaserch doctors stumble on things that work and it takes years to get them fully accepted. But I have to assume thousands of doctors aren't withholding this magic cure because they just hate some politicians (especially considering the side whose medical law they lamented a good bit). If the stuff was really a cure-all some hospitals would be running through patients, curing them by the bucketload. Some other doctor would find out and it would propagate. 

You can ask why these smattering of doctors keeps saying these things (though today's seems particularly flamboyant in style), but the flip side question is if these docs with strip mall clinics have it all figured out, how come huge hospital systems haven't and aren't leveraging it? I can promise there are plenty of doctors and hospital admins on one of those sides. And there have to be some areas that wouldn't object to the stuff. So if it's so magical, I can't see why huge swaths of Drs. aren't all in. 

The motive would be attention and notoriety. A lot of family medicine can be word of mouth. I've lived in a town for five years, and when I'm looking for a new regular doctor, I'm still gonna just ask someone I think might have a good knowledge base.

So if you get on the local news for having the coronavirus cure, you're gonna be the most known doctor in wherever it is in Texas. And that will mean lots of benefits (plus some folks just plain enjoy the attention).

I don't know if it works and at least read that there are nebulous side affects. Obviously most people don't have serious side affects, otherwise it wouldn't be deemed safe at all. And I don't know the medical history of how fast it take people to adopt things. Maybe it's full of moments when non-reaserch doctors stumble on things that work and it takes years to get them fully accepted. But I have to assume thousands of doctors aren't withholding this magic cure because they just hate some politicians (especially considering the side whose medical law they lamented a good bit). If the stuff was really a cure-all some hospitals would be running through patients, curing them by the bucketload. Some other doctor would find out and it would propagate.

You can ask why these smattering of doctors keeps saying these things (though today's seems particularly flamboyant in style), but the flip side question is if these docs with strip mall clinics have it all figured out, how come huge hospital systems haven't and aren't leveraging it? I can promise there are plenty of doctors and hospital admins on one of those sides. And there have to be some areas that wouldn't object to the stuff. So if it's so magical, I can't see why huge swaths of Drs. aren't all in.

opening yourself to public ridicule is not very much of an incentive unless you turn out to be right

They actually do have the right to not have it on their platforms. That's literally the right they have.

Now, I suppose you could say the government should force a private entity to host speech it does not want to. That is well and good, though it sends us down a troubling rabbit hole if someone you don't like gets the keys to the car.

If you have and excercise. control over content open to the public, you can’t claim freedom from liability for any content. You should not have one without the other.  
no other entities do, this is an unprecedented exception carved out.  

That is the real rabbit hole

If you have and excercise. control over content open to the public, you can’t claim freedom from liability for any content. You should not have one without the other. 
no other entities do, this is an unprecedented exception carved out. 

That is the real rabbit hole

On personal level, I'm not particularly in favor of them doing it. The internet has always been rife with garbled nonsense, and I don't really see what makes this special. 

BUT, you really mostly can have some level of control over content open to the public and be somewhat free from liability of that content. If I have a radio show, I have callers, the show isn't held responsible for what the callers say and isn't censoring them because it drops them for whatever reason it chooses. 

In the end, having no control over the content is a disaster waiting to happen. And having government mandate something about the content is going to be a clownshow and a massively expensive endeavor. I find parts of the current arrangement problematic, but there's not much of a real solution that doesn't spin off many more real problems. 

Oh boy, this thread get fucked up.

Probably gonna lose 3 pages when UTee shows up again.

Oh boy, this thread get fucked up.

Probably gonna lose 3 pages when UTee shows up again.

Well, it has its basis in a potential coronavirus treatment. 😬😬

I am not, nor is anyone I have heard, proposing a government mandate to allow specific content.That would be a catastrophe.

Section 230, the rule of the law that protects them from liability from content.  They do not have the same level of ability as a publisher to edit, so they are protected.

This has been controversial because of creepy things line sex trafficking- since it very difficult
to screen that garbage in real time. Just like your radio show example.

But the rule is clear- not to abuse the protection afforded them by censorship of dissenting political views.  They are clearly, repeatedly doing just that.

I am surprised you don’t see the difference.
How they are operating in that area is exactly like a publisher.  No freedom of speech.  And child porn or anything like that is not included in free speech. 

But several doctors talking about literally hope?
Clearly that doesn’t fit their agenda. 

Can you point me to this clear rule in the text of the law? 

The publisher thing isn't all or nothing. A website with comments can be a publisher and is oft treated as a platform when it comes to third-party comments. That even is the case when they moderate those comments. And there's a market solution if you don't like it, which is use something else. Because there is a good bit of something else.

(The thing you mentioned as not free speech, if you drop the word child, that actually is considered free speech in a lot of cases. None the less, it's moderated off a lot of platforms. And if you lose your protection for taking such things off your platforms, than most everyone on the internet has done that thing)