The parent is copy/pasting from the linked press release from Trump which exclusively links to donaldtrumpcampaign.cmail20.com. They know they're arguing in bad faith.
Sure, but the lies by omission might only exist in your head. There's no way of him proving that there's no omission, which makes it look like your argument is made in bad faith.
Please don't try again, I'm not trying to be condescending. If not for yourself, for the people you love. Nicotine addiction is particularly insidious.
Lots of people gave me this advice the few times I was addicted, I ignored them all and simply thought they were talking down to me ("of course, I know it's bad for you", "I can quit whenever I want") so I understand if you interpret it that way. Once you've seen yourself or a loved one go through it and survive (or worse) you have a different reaction, a bit like seeing someone standing on the tracks while a train is approaching. Wishing you good health.
the ones about vaping, when tobacco money paid for the studies it was weird how they always found a lot of danger that people then had to be protected from ...
but when you would look at the data you would see they were using it in a way that noone actually used it (like using bad coils and completely overheating them) etc. Really a pure scam but because it's done in the form of 'science' its supposed to be more credible than people's experiences ...
The tobacco industry is making lots of money off of these and can sell them in flavors that were banned in cigarettes a long time ago (opening up the market to kids again).
No I can't it was some years ago, in the time when they didn't capture the market yet. You can easliy find them online, just go through related subreddits from around 2016, and watch for studies people are complaining about.
edit:
I have just written my comments in good faith. I don't know what distorted view of yourself you have, to expect people will prove something to you.
Shame it's so easy to get comments flagged and killed on HN. The parent comment wasn't inflammatory and (as we can see) contributed to relevant conversation.
This Trump rally from The Hill, where he tells his followers to get the vaccine that he got, garnered 1.5k likes and 1.3k dislikes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huQdxDnQkac
Here a Fox affiliate covers a recent Trump rally, but it has 10 times more likes vs dislikes! Didn't anyone tell them about the grand Youtube conspiracy?! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi4niom7se8
I am alluding to the current party in the White House that gets every video downvoted into oblivion. Some sites accused YouTube of deleting the downvotes.
It's just blind speculation. There is absolutely no historical precedent of Big Tech corporations implementing censorship controls at the behest of governments. Anyone claiming otherwise is spreading misinformation and should be censored.
Government already admitted to pointing Facebook to accounts to be deplatformed. Government and social media collusion is now best assumed to be going on. All that matters now is how much the companies are incentivized to push back. The answer: not much.
If this change happened or not due to such collusion is secondary to the thing worth noting: it would not be surprising if it did, it would be consistent with the governments positioning if it did, and it would also be hard to prove if it did, and if it was proven it would be vociferously defended by legions of commentators and the media. All that would need to happen was for the government to suggest the downvotes on pro-vax vids were contributing to deaths and ergo liability, and suggest the whole feature serves as a mechanism for disinformation they may be liable for in general, perhaps criminally so if the feature can be traced back as a proximate cause of something like the capital riot. Poof.
>Google representatives attended White House meetings more than once a week, on average, from the beginning of Obama’s presidency through October 2015. Nearly 250 people have shuttled from government service to Google employment or vice versa over the course of his administration. [...] The government and Google shared engineers, lawyers, scientists, communications specialists, executives, and even board members. Google has achieved a kind of vertical integration with the government: a true public-private partnership. [0]
>MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, I would say first, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that [The White House is] in regular touch with social media platforms — just like we’re in regular touch with all of you and your media outlets — about areas where we have concern [1]
>So it is possible YouTube removed dislikes it deemed "spam" from videos posted by the White House account, including the Jan. 20 press briefing video. But there is no evidence YouTube deliberately removed authentic dislikes from the video to support the Biden administration or silence critics. [2]
That is speculation, not circumstantial evidence. Thank you for providing sources that say "there is no evidence YouTube deliberately removed authentic dislikes."
You have to make reasonable inferences when evaluating the potential for collusion between what are arguably the two most powerful entities in the world.
Wait, so should platforms do nothing against creators that are brigaded and review bombed?
A video being organically downvoted to oblivion is way different than a bunch of users organizing on 4chan, Reddit, or being directed by their favorite parasocial media personality to go bomb a video/product.
If I was YT I wouldn't want to bother policing this crap and just take away all the incentive to do it in the first place.
I don't think the GP's narrative was that this exclusively happens to the Democrats. Just that it happens way more on the current White House's videos than it did on the last administration's. Plucking examples where Republican videos were downvoted intensely does not refute an argument the OP wasn't making in the first place.
Yes we should totally take google at their word when they say it's not politically motivated.
They can say whatever reasoning they want, that does not necessarily make it true. Google has a well defined history of lying publicly or hiding the things they do. Dragonfly, PRISM... These things take brave whistle blowers that have their lives ruined to reveal.
If I said, "I am going to eat this fried twinkie because it is for my health" would you take that as a factual statement (that twinkies are healthy) just because some PR department repeated it on my behalf? Google saying they are not doing this on behalf of the current administration means nothing. Nobody reasonable expect them to really be honest with the public/users anymore.
