Censorship by big tech at the behest of the U.S. government?

Re:Censorship by big tech at the behest of the U.S. government? by PaulDavisThe1st on Friday September 23, 2022 @10:41AM (#32952570)

> How about letting the at risk people decide for themselves what to do?

So I ask again, what would the circumstances have to be for "letting the at risk people decide for themselves" to be an unacceptable policy? What fatality level, transmission mechanism or whatever would have to be present for you to accept that some sort of centralized public health policy was required?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Censorship by big tech at the behest of the U.S. government? by sul_tasto on Saturday September 24, 2022 @01:24PM (#32964714)

I’m not sure there should be a threshold. If the threat is real, like ebola, people will naturally adjust their behavior. If policy makers have to artificially restrict individual rights, it indicates that policies are being implemented based on a single variable (covid lives saved), to the detriment of all other important considerations. This slippery slope should not be underestimated.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Censorship by big tech at the behest of the U.S. government? by PaulDavisThe1st on Sunday September 25, 2022 @11:57AM (#32972593)

> If the threat is real, like ebola,

1M americans died of COVID-19. That's a real threat, too. So the difference with Ebola is not really to do with the "reality" of the threat, but the manner and rapidity of death, along with the fatality rate.

> If policy makers have to artificially restrict individual rights, it indicates that policies are being implemented based on a single variable

I do not see how you can draw this conclusion.

[ Parent | on HN ]