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

You brought up sides when you said "take a poll of people on this site".

I don't want to censor anyone's opinions - that's unAmerian.  Don't you know that?  I'm not sure who I've insulted, either.  I've called irrational ideas irrational, by definition.  And I've laughed at how obtuse you're being on this one point about social media sites taking down miracle tonic posts. 

I'm not insulting you when I say you're wrong.  Nor do I expect you to tiptoe anywhere near the reality of the thing. 

Perhaps the next time you disagree with someone you put forth the reasons you disagree instead of just making some off the wall comment

nobody likes a smart ass but most on here will at least listen to you if you showed a little more courtesy 

If I disagree with you Im going to tell you why not just that youre wrong so we can have a conversation

you might find that there are areas where there is agreement

You brought up sides when you said "take a poll of people on this site".

I don't want to censor anyone's opinions - that's unAmerian.  Don't you know that?  I'm not sure who I've insulted, either.  I've called irrational ideas irrational, by definition.  And I've laughed at how obtuse you're being on this one point about social media sites taking down miracle tonic posts. 

I'm not insulting you when I say you're wrong.  Nor do I expect you to tiptoe anywhere near the reality of the thing.

I don't even know what this particular fight is about, but this gets back to what I tried to tell you some time ago.  There is such a thing as courtesy.  Good manners.  They help smooth rough edges.  When we are communicating in text, the smile, the wink of an eye, the hand gestures, they're all gone.  All we have is the words.  And you seem to go out of your way to make yours as abrasive as possible.

When people take offense, and you didn't mean to offend, it's often because to didn't bother to use simple courtesy.

I'm just lookin' out for you here, Afro!  You've got lots of good ideas, lots of interesting ideas, and some really boneheaded/ignorant ideas.  But we often don't get to discuss the ideas, because we're reacting to the way you put them across instead.

P.S. Saying that you're right and we're all wrong is part of the problem.

Exactly.  The Cleveland Plain Dealer is subject to liability because they control content.

Exactly. The Cleveland Plain Dealer is not covered by the Section 230 carve out put in place for online content providers. 

Exactly.  The Cleveland Plain Dealer is subject to liability because they control content.

OK. Let's tease this out.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer also has comments. Those comments are moderated to a certain degree. If what you are saying is accurate, then a person could sue the outlet over the content of the comment section. 

The same could happen on the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, this here website. But these things do not happen. They do not happen because the 230 protections are broad and because an outlet can be a publisher of its own content, while also providing an "interactive computer service" to third-party speakers. 

Now there's sort of another interesting question. Even if one imagined Facebook/Google/YouTube was liable for all this stuff, what would be the positive endgame? One couldn't sue for suppression of ideas. That's not a thing. You could sue for other stuff being on there, which would mostly just mean a great contraction of said platforms to something they could cleanly monitor. Is that a positive endgame? It just means big tech has a tighter grip on speech, which there is less of. 

Again, I don't like what they're doing because it mostly just creates a Streisand Effect and is simply badly done. But there's no litmus test of political balance that doesn't open up a host of other issues. 

OK. Let's tease this out.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer also has comments. Those comments are moderated to a certain degree. If what you are saying is accurate, then a person could sue the outlet over the content of the comment section.

The same could happen on the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, this here website. But these things do not happen. They do not happen because the 230 protections are broad and because an outlet can be a publisher of its own content, while also providing an "interactive computer service" to third-party speakers.

Now there's sort of another interesting question. Even if one imagined Facebook/Google/YouTube was liable for all this stuff, what would be the positive endgame? One couldn't sue for suppression of ideas. That's not a thing. You could sue for other stuff being on there, which would mostly just mean a great contraction of said platforms to something they could cleanly monitor. Is that a positive endgame? It just means big tech has a tighter grip on speech, which there is less of.

Again, I don't like what they're doing because it mostly just creates a Streisand Effect and is simply badly done. But there's no litmus test of political balance that doesn't open up a host of other issues.

230 does not protect Cleveland Zplain Desler, Fox News-or WSJ. 

it protects the tech giants who host content on their platform- precisely because they can’t control all content. But they are over hiding behind that protection to promote a political agenda and censoring opposing views- extremely reasonable and often majority supported rules. That is precisely what they committed not to do.

The preponderence of clinical data does not support use of chlorohydroxyquine for treatment or prevention of COVID.

Each "side" (and it's unfortunate we have "sides") can cherry pick data and results, but if you review it ALL, the story if far from compelling, and the positive results that exist are not very impressive, to me.

There should be no side but TRUTH, to the best of our ability to assess it, and I'll leave that to the doctors, aside from forming my personal opinion at this point.

I can't help but think this is tied to the "being courteous" idea.  It's not about 'I'm right and you're wrong,' it's about what IS. 

Many here are seemingly obsessed with the WHO of the thing and not the WHAT.  It's definitely a larger divide between us than happy-nice teddy bear speech. 

Let's go with the doctor with the miracle tonic.  If the doc is worth anything, they'll know (objectively) that evidence and time will yield the truth, not animated claims on a shaky camera.  But I'm afraid even that is something that will be debated here.

You missed my point, as you often do.  Maybe that's my fault.  Communication is a two-way street.
The "right and wrong" I mentioned was not about the facts of the COVID-19 pandemic, but about the idea that good manners would help you get your arguments across.  You have previously rejected the notion that good manners matter.  Several posters here have told you that you have bad manners, that you are discourteous.  You say that that doesn't matter.
It is that conflict of visions that prompted my point about you asserting that you are right and everybody else is wrong.