Let them fight. I want a discovery on this
I’m betting this gets dismissed before discovery
What a time locked headline.
You can’t get elected without big tech bribes, and he just bit the hand that feeds.
It’s ok. He can’t get elected anyway
He’ll never recover after the death of his running mate: VP Brain Worm.
Yes, because Americans would never consider electing a President with health issues.
Don’t worry, VP Brain Worm laid eggs.
deleted by creator
Not the onion.
Thought about posting it there but I had already made one RFK post there last night and didn’t want to do 2 in a day lol
Real life Connor Roy soldiers bravely on.
The brain worm is up to something…
Get em wormy
That lil dude goes hard and saved my ass multiple times
That lil dude goes hard and saved my ass multiple times
-RFK jr probably
So what? How does he think Meta is liable for anything here?
They’re oppressing him! The chatbot said so!!
it’s gotta be posturing for his base “lone hero stands up to big tech”
So, what do we do about the fact that major social media outlets are the only effective means of mass communication? Why should they get to pick and choose our leadership?
They’re not.
Stop with your complete bullshit you utter doughnut.
He lets the worm do the thinking.
He could have been a great dude but he just HAD to go down the antivax rabbit hole. Fuckin’ shame.
Sadly, that’s not the only conspiracy he’s into
Yea which is crazy. I don’t agree with him but I like him. Something about him. Makes me really engaged him more and had better discussions. I’d love to see him chat with Steve Novella or someone like that.
In all of this it has be disheartening to see how has a voice today and who doesn’t even if the people with the megaphone say they’re being silenced
On the one hand, I hope he loses.
On the other hand, I hope Meta also loses.
Something tells me we are the ones who lose.
Regardless, the lawyers win.
And for once I’m OK with that
And on the brain… Worms!
I am the one who walks away from Omelas.
“When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers”
Does everyone hate Bobby Kennedy so much that they’ll side with Facebook and Zuckerberg over a career environmental attorney because he’s running for president?
He’s an unhinged anti-vaxxer and all around conspiracy theorist. Summarizing him as an environmental lawyer is being real generous.
That’s true. I’d pick that over thieves and murderers any time though. Especially as a politician to vote for.
I’d prefer not to die in a pandemic because a president is afraid of THE AUTISMS, but you do you.
Somebody quoted him saying that his family is vaccinated.
Not everyone likes to decide for others as much as you do.
What did I decide for others and when did I decide it?
It’s the most likely cause of assuming that his presidency would lead to mass deaths because of antivaxxers.
The most likely cause of assuming that his presidency would lead to mass deaths because of antivaxxers is me deciding something for others?
Again, what did I decide for others and when did I decide it?
No one cares
How would you know who cares or not, if you are not even a person by my measure?
“Let’s imagine: It’s time to elect a world leader, and your vote counts. Which would you choose:
“Candidate A: Associates with ward healers and consults with astrologists; has had two mistresses; chain-smokes and drinks eight to ten martinis a day.
“Candidate B: Was kicked out of office twice; sleeps until noon; used opium in college; drinks a quart of brandy every evening.
“Candidate C: Is a decorated war hero, a vegetarian, doesn’t smoke, drinks an occasional beer, and has had no illicit love affairs.
“Which of these candidates is your choice? You don’t really need any more information, do you? Candidate A is Franklin Roosevelt. Candidate B is Winston Churchill. Candidate C is Adolf Hitler.”
Biased and selective comparisons can prove anything.
Okay, but he also has admitted to have decreased cognitive function and memory problems because of the brain worms. I don’t think that it’s a horrible bias to say that people who have decreased cognitive function and memory problems because of brain worms probably shouldn’t be president.
I agree, the statement earlier was another example. RFK is a terrible choice for many reasons (the worms thing is almost certainly bullshit though). But everyone has some good qualities you can focus on if you want to promote them. Similarly, everyone has bad qualities if that’s your M.O.
he also has admitted to have decreased cognitive function and memory problems because of the brain worms.
Not permanently
I’m not sure why you’re not aware of this, but brains don’t grow back.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rfk-jr-claims-doctor-parasite-ate-part-brain/story?id=110027317
Doctors interviewed by ABC News clarified that these types of parasites don’t actually eat brain tissue. Rather, they absorb nutrients passively before dying.
According to doctors interviewed by ABC News, an infection like this could lead to seizures, which could potentially cause short-lived memory problems as Kennedy described, but most patients would mount a full recovery.
None of that has anything to do with policy.
If you pick someone based on this criteria you’re a fucking idiot.
Politicians are there to set policy you stupid fuck…not be a cult of personality.
I don’t think anyone “hates” him. He’s just an absurd human that no one takes seriously. And we all agree we have much more dire things to discuss than what rich white people are calling managers about now.
No, because he’s actually quite mad and belongs nowhere near any kind of power. I can see his conspiracy theories appealing to the Q type, but most of them are going to go for Trump. He’s polling this highly because he’s an unknown. As more people start paying attention to who he actually is, he will be the Herman Cain of the race.
No, because he’s actually quite mad and belongs nowhere near any kind of power.
I’d trust a person openly mad more than a person still likely mad.
He actually had (much smaller) power from time to time in his career, and after becoming as he is now too. He did better with it than many people would.
I’m not sure how he’s any more ‘openly mad’ than Trump. Neither of them admit it.
Trump is demented, not mad.
Second word from the top on the list:
Demented is usually used meaning that somebody’s intelligence has sharply declined.
Mad is usually used meaning that somebody’s sanity has sharply declined.
Would you agree that Bobby Kennedy would draw more voters from Trump as it stands?
A “conspiracy theorist” is rejected on the left until government-sanctioned evidence is provided. The right doesn’t have that constraint.
The left believes conspiracy theories. They’re just different conspiracy theories.
Nah he’s great. He should take the rest of those brain worms, I think the worms should be in charge!
Worms/Kennedy 2024!
According to Kennedy, Meta is colluding with the Biden administration to sway the 2024 presidential election by suppressing Kennedy’s documentary and making it harder to support Kennedy’s candidacy. This allegedly has caused “substantial donation losses,” while also violating the free speech rights of Kennedy, his supporters, and his film’s production company, AV24.
In this case, Meta and the Biden administration are claimed to be co-conspirators colluding to block citizens from promoting their favorite presidential candidate.
We can very much dislike both while also agreeing that this is fucking stupid. While we continue to very much dislike both, one is clearly in the wrong on this issue and pointing out the sheer stupidity of Kennedy’s actions is not “siding” with Zuckerberg.
I don’t care what his profession is/was - he’s wrong and it would be disingenuous to give him a pass because he did a thing at some point in his life that I agreed with.
The second quote is stupid, but acceptable in a contentious environment. He can say that.
The first quote is formally wrong (because Meta is a privileged entity which is a platform when it’s convenient and a private something not subject to free speech when that is convenient), but in fact almost certainly true. Even obvious. It would take Meta to go out of their way to not do that.
The first quote is formally wrong (because Meta is a privileged entity which is a platform when it’s convenient and a private something not subject to free speech when that is convenient), but in fact almost certainly true. Even obvious.
I have no idea if it is or isn’t, but they’re both still terrible people.
How is RFK terrible?
I don’t think it’s productive to spend time regurgitating what’s already been said numerous times regarding his antivax beliefs and other conspiracy theories.
If you don’t think those are bad, then you do you, but I’m not going to debate it here. Have a good night.
Yes, it’d be productive for you to defend your point of view and not refer to some crowd thinking some way, I could care less about tons of bullshit which have already been said. Since the invention of machine gun this should have ceased to be an argument even emotionally.
Obviously it’s only my point of view and arguments against yours , “everybody does that” means that you are an irresponsible person who shouldn’t be considered.
Obviously yes, I don’t think these are worse than what others do.
Also it was morning for me.
Yeah, I’m no fan of RFK, but I would much rather live in a world where people like RFK can speak their mind instead of this one where Meta gets to decide whose voices are heard. It’s pretty easy to ignore a crazy person, it’s hard to find worthwhile content the major players don’t want you to find.
So don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, having a free society means we’ll have to deal with people like RFK every so often.
The corpos are way too ban happy
Meta is a private company and can do whatever the fuck they like.
This guy shouldn’t be let anywhere near a position of decision making, let alone the highest office in the nation.
Private company in what way? The company is publicly traded - there are rules and regulations that organizations have to abide by. it’s not totally lawless current state … They’re legally beholden to shareholders to maximize value. They can do what they like but probably don’t want them allowing certain folks to have a platform (moderating the platform). Meta uses the grey area to manipulate and addict users, that’s just their business practice to drive value and generate views/engagement with their platform.
Agree this dude is unhinged.
private company in that it is not owned by the government. Those are the two categories.
Either you’re they’re by the government or they’re by private citizens. being traded on the stock market, or traded privately, or not traded at all makes no difference to them being a private company.
They sure have received a lot of government/taxpayer money for being such a private anti free speech company.
Tesla just got $17 billion from the government, is Musk now owned by the USA government? No.
A coal miner just got laid off work and is collecting his first unemployment check while he looks for new work. Because he got support from the government between jobs, does that mean the government owns him like a slave?
Or perhaps you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about? Yes, that seems to be the case.
I’m just saying there can be a case made in front of a judge about the government funding these companies and then using these companies to reprive people of their 1st amendment rights as they have been proven to have done on X.
But whatever you say… Coal miners… Unemployment… Between jobs… Slavery… Wtf are you talking about?
No, they have to follow laws.
Which law are you referencing?
You agree to their EULA and TOS when you make your account. In that, there exists a clause that states that you can be banned for any reason or no reason at all at the site administrators discretion.
So explain to me again how meta is in the wrong here?
All companies have to follow laws. It’s not rocket science.
Again, what laws are you referring to? I want to hear you explain it.
Laws, the ones that countries and sometimes bigger entities enact as rules
Okay, so you have no clue what you’re talking about. Got it 👌
Corporations have to follow laws. It’s pretty simple? I am refuting your statement that they don’t have to follow laws. It’s up to you (once you grasp the concept) to continue the debate here
Private companies should not be able to do whatever the fuck they like. They have a very important responsibility, and they will not consider ethics over profit, unless we as a society force them to.
Okay sure, but there’s nothing on the books that says that meta has to allow people to use their platform. You are not entitled to unlimited access to a private service.
Ever single person from RFK and Donald Trump to you and me all sign the exact same fucking EULA and TOS when you register for an account. Stop holding these people above the law by pretending that the rules shouldn’t apply to them.
The fact meta has received 2 billion dollars in taxpayer gov’t money should entitle every single taxpayer to their 1st amendment.
Meta is not the government. Something being government funded does not make it an apparatus of the government. There has been no curtailing of 1st amendment rights here.
There has indeed been curtailing of 1st amendment rights. We all remember the twitter files I’m sure. You can bet anything that same crap happens on meta platforms. Surely there is an argument to be made on the curtailing of 1st amendment rights and whether these social media companies are an apparatus of the gov.
But yea according to all these expert lawyers in the comments nothing to see here.
Really don’t need to hear anything coming from this guy. It’s always batshit crazy and it’s a waste of time.
It’s always hilarious to read and worth a laugh imo
I remember seeing be was a guest on Rogan and thinking, “Oh, wow. I guess I’ll listen to Rogan again this one time to hear a Kennedy talking.”
Turns out it was right on fucking brand for Rogan.
Man talking to himself accuses company of action they are allowed to perform
deleted by creator
There is no freedom of speech guarantee in private or public enterprise. Only government.
Yet another tool that uses “freedom of speech” incorrectly to basically mean “I want to force people to listen to my bullshit.” How these people running for office don’t get the first amendment is amazing.
There is no freedom of speech guarantee in private or public enterprise.
And the consequence of this policy is a back-door path to censorship. A combination of surveillance, selective-admittance, and media saturation allow certain ideological beliefs to suffice the “marketplace of ideas” while others are silenced.
“I want to force people to listen to my bullshit.”
Its more that privatized media infrastructure allows for a monopolization of speech.
Big media companies still force people to listen to bullshit, by way of advertising and algorithmic promotion. Go on YouTube, click through their “recommended” list a few times, and you’ll quickly find yourself watching some Mr. Beast episode or PraegerU video, simply because these folks have invested so heavily in self-promotion.
But there’s a wide swath of content you won’t see, either because YouTube’s algorithm explicitly censors it for policy reasons, because the media isn’t maxing out the SEO YouTube execs desire (the classic Soy Face thumbnail for instance), or because you’re not spending enough money to boost visibility.
This has nothing to do with what the generic video watcher wants to see and everything to do with what YouTube administration wants that watcher to see.
RFK Jr is a nasty little freak with some very toxic beliefs. But that’s not why he’s struggling to get noticed on the platform, when plenty of other nasty freaks with toxic beliefs get mainstream circulation.
Yeah. That’s also a problem. But then you have to upend corporate ownership of the control of speech, and we’re already facing that problem.
Yet another tool that uses “freedom of speech” incorrectly
Often freedom of speech is a moral ideal, a moral aspiration, and dismissing it on legal grounds is missing the point.
If I say “people should have a right to healthcare”, and you respond “people do not have a legal right to healthcare”, you are correct, but you have missed the point. If I say people should have freedom of speech and you respond that the first amendment doesn’t apply to Facebook, you are right, but have again missed the point.
In general, when people advocate for any change, they can be countered with “well, the law doesn’t require that”. Yes, society currently works the way the law says it should. But what we’re talking about is how society should work and how the law should change.
The thing is people shouldnt have that level of “freedom of speech”
No one is above reproach.
That’s lovely, and I appreciate the sentiment. It doesn’t change the fact that someone abuses the term in order to force others to listen to BS. I’m not opposed to the ideal, I am opposed to the expectation that people have a right to make you listen to them.
I’m okay with algorithms not recommending certain posts. I just don’t like shadowbans because the platform is lying to the user, the user interface is essentially telling the user “your post is available for viewing” when it really isn’t.
I’m opposed to the idea, we’ve got enough people that think their ideas need to be broadcast to everyone in the world.
Okay, but you don’t win lawsuits based on how the law ought to be
