> Basically, blue states that had more of them had results getting almost as bad as red states without them have it. Lives were saved at some acceptable lowering of test scores.
Are you seriously asserting that school closures are the difference between red state and blue state mortality rates??
> Nonsense. The points of your side were repeated and laundered and repeated and defended and then again. ... bullshit with researchers being censored
The censorship was vast and is well documented, ie, [0], [1], [2], etc. Facebook alone admitted to removing over 20 million posts, and suppressing at least 190 million.
> Not true. Vaccines came, covid went away. Babies cried about vaccines.
Did covid 'go away' in the global south, where they didn't have vaccines? Hmmmmm......
> Are you seriously asserting that school closures are the difference between red state and blue state mortality rates??
What's your explanation for the difference?
> The censorship was vast and is well documented, ie, [0], [1], [2], etc. Facebook alone admitted to removing over 20 million posts, and suppressing at least 190 million.
I don't know about you, but I don't use Facebook for science research.
Was there censorship on, idk, arxiv regarding Covid?
I think you're the one who mentioned it up the comment chain, but I agree with the view that the messaging coming from (well, everywhere) is divisive and dogmatic.
> Facebook alone admitted to removing over 20 million posts, and suppressing at least 190 million.
Facebook also pushes false narratives. Facebook and other large companies drive engagement above all else, and engagement is found on the fringes.
I really like the parent comments you made. They didn't come off as "one-sided" (in any direction), but more so "let's step back and think about it." Kind of like a blameless post-mortem, blameless in the way of saying it wasn't _our_ faults, the general public, because who are we to really fight against these companies who have so successfully weaponized our basic emotions and values against ourselves? And what can we do to "wake up" (not in a "red-pill" or "sheeple" way) and collectively see that all of these narratives that we are fed are for no common person's best interests, and that we've been had, and how can we work together next time (if we even can work together on the same platforms which pull us apart)?
I know that the realization that I came to after reflecting on everything that happened over the past (5, 10, 15) years is that the only thing that _I_ can do is focus my energy towards my community - my friends, my neighbors, those people who I can in someway touch without relying on corporations with ulterior motives to stand between us.
And, like you alluded to, to also accept that most things are out of my control. Nothing I do will ever sway climate change, for instance. An example that sticks out to me is Greta Thornberg. She had what seemed to be very pure intentions about making a stand for a better future (whether that is or isn't the case isn't the focus here), but, no matter what side of the issue a person falls on, the main story surrounding her turned into questioning her - her motivations, her knowledge, her parents; the narrative given to 'conservative'-leaning people were all of her flaws, and the narrative given to 'liberal'-leaning people was the manufactured outrage about what the 'conservatives' were saying - and then, Boom: now nobody is actually talking about the issue, and the divide grows wider, and the focus is taken off of the companies who indisputably take advantage of the world (can anyone actually make an argument that the waste poured into rivers, for example, is _good_ for the inhabitants of the earth?).
Climate change, wars for profit, mass censorship and surveillance, etc, aren't blameless issues - there are people doing these things, people like you and I (only wealthier). Fossil fuel companies knew for a fact that they were causing climate change, and responded by poisoning the global conversation while suppressing alternatives.
What's between us and a better world is class awareness. So, for example, when you say things like "Facebook and other large companies drive engagement above all else", you're missing a major piece of the puzzle.
The daily atrocities in Gaza could drive tremendous engagement on Facebook, were they not heavily censored and suppressed.
Same goes for mainstream media. Look how unanimous the opinion of the media and political class was against Luigi. Look how they chorused in unison with smears against Jill Stein, or against Assange, Snowden etc. Again, all people who had their stories suppressed on social media as well.
This also explains how with Greta "the main story surrounding her turned into questioning her" - there's an agenda that unites the tiny number of billionaires who own basically all media in the West. The element of class even explains neatly why the media stopped covering Greta - because she started connecting the world's issues to capitalism and inequality. (You know, like MLK did, right before he was assassinated.)
So please don't think I have a message of blamelessness for the world's issues. There's more than enough blame to go around, and the problems won't be fixed if we keep ignoring the problems stemming from massive wealth inequality.
Are you seriously asserting that school closures are the difference between red state and blue state mortality rates??
> Nonsense. The points of your side were repeated and laundered and repeated and defended and then again. ... bullshit with researchers being censored
The censorship was vast and is well documented, ie, [0], [1], [2], etc. Facebook alone admitted to removing over 20 million posts, and suppressing at least 190 million.
> Not true. Vaccines came, covid went away. Babies cried about vaccines.
Did covid 'go away' in the global south, where they didn't have vaccines? Hmmmmm......
0 - https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/biden-administration-repeate...
1 - https://www.thefp.com/p/i-fought-government-censorship-and-w...
2 - https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/01/12/why-did-scientists-...