world

RFK Jr's anti-vaccine group kicked off Instagram, Facebook

19 Comments
By DAVID KLEPPER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.


19 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

lol

4 ( +7 / -3 )

I can’t imagine what website virusrex is thinking of. Sounds like extremely poor moderation to me.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Joemusic1980

Why not? They are Americans and allowed freedom of speech and not the party line.

Just because you don’t agree with someone doesn’t make them a criminal. They have rights, regardless of your opinion.

You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts. They are criminal in the fact that they convince others to forgo life-saving vaccines. They have blood on their hands.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Take it to Truth Social. They only ‘censor’ there if you post anti 45, pro-choice, Jan 6th etc. If you don’t mind that you’ll find the audience you need.

You sure know a lot. What is your User ID over there so I can check out your latest info and pics?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

In a statement, Kennedy compared Facebook's actions to government censorship, even though Facebook is a private company that can set and enforce its own rules about misinformation.

A) Your father would be ashamed of you.

B) You exhibit as much understanding of the Constitution and Free Speech as "Constitutional Conservatives" (Truly the oxymoron of the 21st century in that it is widely spouted by morons who act as though they are on Oxy) - which is to say "none".

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Maybe it is time for mass media outlets to do the same and stop allowing antivaxxer groups to pollute articles about vaccines with endlessly repeated false information made specifically to mislead people into vaccine anxiety.

Social media comes only with a weak appeal of being valid, because most people understand anybody can write anything they like, but when a news article in a purportely respectable site is flooded with disinformation in the comments people are more likely to believe the comments are true, because if they were not the site would not allow them to remain.

Except that frequently that is exactly what happens, a well researched and supported article about vaccines gets polluted with dozens of comments saying the opposite.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Excellent, anti-vaccine criminals don't deserve social networks, losers as always..

Why not? They are Americans and allowed freedom of speech and not the party line.

Just because you don’t agree with someone doesn’t make them a criminal. They have rights, regardless of your opinion.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Robert Kennedy Jr repeatedly violated rules prohibiting misinformation about COVID-19.

Who determines what is misinformation? And what is their connection with big pharma?

Anyway, these media that censor information are becoming increasingly irrelevant. People realize what is going on. He doesn't need Facebook to continue educating people.

Despite the censorship and boycotts, RFK's recent book "The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health" has sold over a million copies.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Take it to Truth Social. They only ‘censor’ there if you post anti 45, pro-choice, Jan 6th etc. If you don’t mind that you’ll find the audience you need.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

So much for Freedom of Speech.

Literally from the article: "Facebook is a private company that can set and enforce its own rules about misinformation."

Like many of the afore mentioned "Constitutional Conservatives", you seem to be under the delusion that the Constitution protects you to say anything you want, anywhere at anytime. It does not. It protects you from government limitations on speech. It really is that simple.

As for Insta and FB, those are the TOS. You don't have to like them ( I don't like it when my funny, on-topic, witty posts that have gotten a bunch of up-votes get pulled). You can live within the rules or you can move along to another site.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Why not? They are Americans and allowed freedom of speech and not the party line.

This isn’t about parties. Meta companies are private entities and can set their own rules for access and use. Don’t like it? Go elsewhere.

The “free markets run by corporations is the best way to run a country” crowd always cry and whine and beg for government intervention when the free market does something they don’t like.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

yeah they dont like it when he shows that nearly everything that we were told over the last 2 years that was factual actually wasnt. They have to pretend "no one ever said that......(insert what they actually did say)"

https://www.axios.com/2022/08/17/cdc-changes-covid-response-walensky

CDC even admitted it.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Who determines what is misinformation?

Can it be proved false by the best available scientific knowledge? then it is extremely clear it is misinformation, and if it is being used precisely because it is false to mislead people as the CHD have repeatedly done then it is disinformation. One something is demonstrated as false using it as argument evidence the will to deceive people.

And what is their connection with big pharma?

As in the scientific consensus of the world? irrelevant. Nobody can believe every institution of medicine or science all agree on something because of pharmaceutical companies, not only that would take much more money in bribes than what it could be made with vaccines. It also would mean literally everybody working on those institutions is willing to put their own family and friend's health in risk just for money, nobody can believe this.

Anyway, these media that censor information are becoming increasingly irrelevant. People realize what is going on. He doesn't need Facebook to continue educating people.

Since he has repeatedly used false information he can't be characterized as educating people. For that he would have to use peer-reviewed articles published in indexed journals as the professionals that actually use veridic information do.

Despite the censorship and boycotts, RFK's recent book "The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health" has sold over a million copies.

This is a fallacy called appeal to popularity. Things that are demonstrably false continue to be false even if a lot of people believe them.

yeah they dont like it when he shows that nearly everything that we were told over the last 2 years that was factual actually wasnt

He have shown nothing of the sort, he has tried to mislead people into believing that with false information but has achieved quite little fortunately.

hey have to pretend "no one ever said that......(insert what they actually did say)"

When someone use this and you are unable to present any source where that something was actually said then it is a perfectly valid argument. Making up imaginary things that the experts never said, or that they even explicitly contradicted is just trying to use strawman fallacies because you can't contradict what what actually said.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

By Google ?

By primary scientific sources, which is exactly what the anti-vaccine groups try very hard to ignore or even misrepresent. No expert depends on google to prove something.

Impossible to know the longtem effects.

And you can know the long term effects of covid? that makes it an irrelevant argument.

We already know the vaccines reduce very importantly the risks from the infection, and it is the infection that is continuously being correlated with more and more health risks. So we already know being vaccinated is the better option by much, what the experts don't know exactly is how much better of an option it is.

Perhaps saved from covid yes but look at the USA track record for vaccines that did harm.

Absolutely nothing compared with the benefits they have done, much less when the current standards for testing for safety and efficacy are used.

Facts change !

Thats science .

But making up things or using "evidence" that has been proved false do not make the facts change, so eliminating those lies has no negative effect.

You want to prove something is different from what is the current consensus? show validated evidence, else the consensus is much more likely to be true, because it has that evidence.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

yeah they dont like it when he shows that nearly everything that we were told over the last 2 years that was factual actually wasnt.

Yeah, as people increasingly recognize the deception over the past 2 years, many will hopefully look closely at the past 2 decades of "facts" and not continue to summarily dismiss the so-called "conspiracy theorists' misinformation."

Who determines what is misinformation?

Can it be proved false by the best available scientific knowledge?

RFK backs everything he says or writes, he is no Alex Jones. The so-called scientific experts always run away from debating RFK, all they do is try to silence him. If they could refute him with data, they would debate him.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Well researched

Scientifically proven

By Google ?

Only time will tell the consequences of taking the vaccines.

Impossible to know the longtem effects.

Regardless if the vaccines have saved lives or not.

Perhaps saved from covid yes but look at the USA track record for vaccines that did harm.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Facts change !

Thats science .

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

So much for Freedom of Speech.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

Excellent, anti-vaccine criminals don't deserve social networks, losers as always..

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites