Who is behind the "End quarantaine now" movement?

[JohnRoberts]

I don't even have the dust masks I ordered weeks ago....

Luckily I don't spend much time in public... tomorrow is grocery shopping day but so far in store traffic is pretty sparse while I am now out of brown rice for two weeks...

JR

 

[living sounds]

I searched "vis a vis" (latin/french for face to face) and am still unsure what you are saying.

The first amendment had been inspected by the courts wrt internet communication and it is generally considered similar to newspaper publications, with lots of case law. This mostly refers to their right to say/print unpopular stuff. Facebook restricting opinion/speech seems a new area needing more clarity. Just like free speech does not allow you to scream "fire" in a crowded theater, FB seems to be arguing that they are just supporting local governments trying to prevent public protests for safety concerns.  I consider this a slippery slope fraught with larger implications. Of course my mind reading is no better than yours.

Constitutional rights primarily apply to citizens vs. the government, not citizens vs. other citizens. At least that's my understanding (as it is here in Germany, our constitution being partly modeled on the US Constitution).

Anyway, Facebook is a platform, not a content provider. Very different from a newspaper. Here in Europe we have long priviliged platforms, but it looks like smarter regulations are necessary.

[quote author=JohnRoberts]
they are literally begging for regulation because they know they have the scale to pay the cost of regulation and that would only increase their moat preventing competition from new smaller players. I suspect EU is more than happy to regulate them for a fee...  I would like to see more competition but that ship may have already sailed, as they buy up new small challenging technology companies (anti-trust issue??). 
[/quote]

It looks more and more like it will be necessary to trust bust many large corporations, just as it was done before in earlier times. Competition in the media landscape... there is a big question mark around this. There are corporate media houses, small and quality newspapers go bankrupt, there is lot's of alternative stuff now that falls in the category of conspiracy mongerers and agitators.

I think it started with Murdoch, he is the worst thing that happened to the anglo-american media landscape. There should be standards to which media has to adhere, as you said, one isn't allowed to cry fire in a crowded theatre, but the long-term spreading of lies and misinformation has a corrosive effect that is equally destructive.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Constitutional rights primarily apply to citizens vs. the government, not citizens vs. other citizens. At least that's my understanding (as it is here in Germany, our constitution being partly modeled on the US Constitution).

The constitution insures individual liberties against any infringement.

Anyway, Facebook is a platform, not a content provider. Very different from a newspaper. Here in Europe we have long priviliged platforms, but it looks like smarter regulations are necessary.

I am repeating myself but

from 2 year old article

More recently, in Packingham v North Carolina, the US supreme court offered a competing analogy for social media, comparing these services to the modern public square. In Packingham, a state statute made it a felony for registered sex offenders to go on certain social networking sites. The court ultimately held that the statute unconstitutionally restricted the sex offenders’ speech in violation of the first amendment.

In coming to this holding, the court emphasized that streets and parks are the “quintessential forum for the exercise of first amendment rights … [and] while in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places (in a special sense) for the exchange of views, today the answer is clear. It is cyberspace – the ‘vast democratic forums of the Internet’ in generally, and social media in particular”.

Put succinctly, the court called cyberspace and social media “the modern public square”. If the court means what it says and sticks with the modern-square analogy, then it’s these companies that become vulnerable to first amendment challenges by users.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/09/google-facebook-first-amendment-protections

Of course the law on this and government regulation are contested and as I already shared kind of embraced by big social media as giving them a competitive moat.

It looks more and more like it will be necessary to trust bust many large corporations, just as it was done before in earlier times. Competition in the media landscape... there is a big question mark around this. There are corporate media houses, small and quality newspapers go bankrupt, there is lot's of alternative stuff now that falls in the category of conspiracy mongerers and agitators.

Not so obvious, the classic test for anti-trust is when reduced competition harms consumers by higher prices. Free social media services are harder to quantify consumer costs. Indeed there is harm to small competitors but afaik they are not a constitutionally protected class.

I would like to see more competition but worry about using government force to create the appearance of competition which could result in government picking new winners and losers.

I think it started with Murdoch, he is the worst thing that happened to the anglo-american media landscape. There should be standards to which media has to adhere, as you said, one isn't allowed to cry fire in a crowded theatre, but the long-term spreading of lies and misinformation has a corrosive effect that is equally destructive.

I have just restarted my WSJ subscription that I furloughed for 6 months. During the furlough I investigated other news sources and cancelled one weekly news magazine after only a handful of issues, it was less informative than it was irritating (due to bias). Even the WSJ gets a little squishy with headlines that are not supported by the content in the articles.

It takes more work to make sense of the world these days, ignore all the talking heads trying to tell you what to think... including me.  8)

JR

 

[living sounds]

I would like to see more competition but worry about using government force to create the appearance of competition which could result in government picking new winners and losers. I have just restarted my WSJ subscription that I furloughed for 6 months. During the furlough I investigated other news sources and cancelled one weekly news magazine after only a handful of issues, it was less informative than it was irritating (due to bias). Even the WSJ gets a little squishy with headlines that are not supported by the content in the articles.

It takes more work to make sense of the world these days, ignore all the talking heads trying to tell you what to think... including me.  8)

JR

Almost all media has gotten worse. Laced with emotion where facts should prevail. Accross the board.

Aside from that, I think there is a clear disbalance when it comes to misrepresenting the facts, for example I consider Fox to be much worse than MSNBC in this regard. And there is no mass media on the left that compares to right-wing talk-radio or conspiracy media like Breitbart or Infowars, with respect to their influence.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Almost all media has gotten worse. Laced with emotion where facts should prevail. Accross the board.

I have paid attention to news media since the 60s. I perceived a shift with the anti-war sentiment triggered by Viet nam (war?). In fact the evening news influenced public sentiment against participation in Viet Nam with unpleasant (negative) coverage. Since I was drafted back then (1970) I was opposed to Viet Nam too (duh).

While I delivered newspapers as a paperboy in the 50s I did not pay close attention to the news therein.

Aside from that, I think there is a clear disbalance when it comes to misrepresenting the facts, for example I consider Fox to be much worse than MSNBC in this regard.

I hope you aren't shocked if I shared that millions of people have exactly the opposite opinion from you. I wouldn't get news from either but they both clearly cater to provide what their different leaning audiences prefer to hear (its just bidness).

For personal amusement I tuned into MSNBC the night that President Trump was elected to watch them all melt down on screen. 

And there is no mass media on the left that compares to right-wing talk-radio or conspiracy media like Breitbart or Infowars, with respect to their influence.

HUH... It looks like fact checking preferentially checks POTUS statements. Some liberal newspapers are quite aggressive.

Fox has on air talent, some characterized as news readers, some  news anchors, and some as political commentators.  MSNBC calls them all "news" correspondents  (cough). I've heard some partisan rants from those "news correspondents" that make some of my friends here sound apolitical. 

I guess the appearance of bias is all relative to our own personal bias... (I am right leaning-libertarian-conservative, and according to some here a sloppy thinker  : ).

JR

 

[L´Andratté]

Guardian on topic:
Liz Uihlein
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/23/liz-uihlein-trump-donor-wisconsin-stay-at-home-order-coronavirus

 

[living sounds]

I have paid attention to news media since the 60s. I perceived a shift with the anti-war sentiment triggered by Viet nam (war?). In fact the evening news influenced public sentiment against participation in Viet Nam with unpleasant (negative) coverage. Since I was drafted back then (1970) I was opposed to Viet Nam too (duh).

While I delivered newspapers as a paperboy in the 50s I did not pay close attention to the news therein. I hope you aren't shocked if I shared that millions of people have exactly the opposite opinion from you. I wouldn't get news from either but they both clearly cater to provide what their different leaning audiences prefer to hear (its just bidness).

For personal amusement I tuned into MSNBC the night that President Trump was elected to watch them all melt down on screen.  HUH... It looks like fact checking preferentially checks POTUS statements. Some liberal newspapers are quite aggressive.

Fox has on air talent, some characterized as news readers, some  news anchors, and some as political commentators.  MSNBC calls them all "news" correspondents  (cough). I've heard some partisan rants from those "news correspondents" that make some of my friends here sound apolitical. 

I guess the appearance of bias is all relative to our own personal bias... (I am right leaning-libertarian-conservative, and according to some here a sloppy thinker  : ).

JR

Long before the Vietnam War Eisenhower warned against the military industrial complex that is the main driver behind the wars.  I wasn't around at the time, but find it hard to imagine that in the post-war era there was ever a pro-war sentiment in the news media.

The shift I was talking about started with cable TV and accelerated with the internet and then again with social media. And things are not the same for different countries. For instance, Germany has a very different media landscape to the one in the US. We were very lucky in that Murdoch had no luck here.

So no, it is not relative. There are very clear differences and the left-wing-media is not a mirror-image to the right-wing-media. MSNBC has a bias, but they are also fact-based. This simply isn't the case for much of the right-wing media. When your world-view is machiavellian, the truth doesn't matter.

 

[scott2000]

Warum Deutschlands Lockdown falsch ist – und Schweden vieles besser macht



"In summary, countries such as Sweden, South Korea and Taiwan have acted wisely in their absence of lockdowns. The virologists there led the population and politics through the crisis with a steady hand, instead of unsettling them by constantly changing course. The corona virus was successfully contained without harm to fundamental rights and jobs. Germany should take this policy as an example."

https://www.msn.com/de-de/nachrichten/coronavirus/warum-deutschlands-lockdown-falsch-ist-%E2%80%93-und-schweden-vieles-besser-macht/ar-BB12E6km



"The president of the Civil Chamber of Lawyers of Prato asks for the cancellation of the Prime Minister's Decree of 10 April: "It is illegitimate"

"The president of the Civil Chamber of Lawyers of Prato Duccio Balestri, in a personal capacity, has promoted an initiative that wants to underline the unconstitutionality of the measures taken by our Government, "which is affecting constitutionally protected freedoms in the name of an alleged but not proven emergency ".

"The Prime Ministerial Decree of 10 April 2020 is nothing more than an administrative act of the President of the Council of Ministers which, in the moment in which it limits the freedom of movement of persons by providing for universal containment for alleged health needs, is already in evident contrast with Articles 16 and 32 Constitution, as well as preventing the carrying out of work and economic initiative. "

For the civilian, the government has not respected the constitutional dictation, having attributed with a decree law to its own member the power to limit constitutional freedoms with administrative acts, which can find limits only in parliamentary legislative acts."

https://www.tvprato.it/2020/04/la-camera-civile-degli-avvocati-pratesi-chiede-lannullamento-del-dpcm-del-10-aprile-e-illegittimo/

 

[JohnRoberts]

Long before the Vietnam War Eisenhower warned against the military industrial complex that is the main driver behind the wars.

you are connecting dots that are not proved.

Indeed President Eisenhower presciently warned about Military industrial complex pursuing their own self interest (commercial profits).

We must not fail to comprehend its grave implications we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence…The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." Eisenhower cautioned that the federal government’s collaboration with an alliance of military and industrial leaders, though necessary, was vulnerable to abuse of power. Ike then counseled American citizens to be vigilant in monitoring the military-industrial complex.

I was too young to vote for him, and do not remember that speech (1961). I wholeheartedly agree with his sentiment when I did hear it decades ago. Unlike you,  I do not blame the M.I.C. for international bad actors causing mischief (for example the Iranian republican guard just launched a military satellite, while their population is suffering from COVID 19 and inadequate medical care.

On your topic veer, as ex-military I am pleased to finally have a commander in chief who is bringing more troops home than sending into harms way. Of course our adversaries will not let this pass quietly and Russian aircraft have  intercepted US aircraft in the middle east multiple times recently to drive home the point that that are the big dog there now (good luck with that).

To win influence they are negotiating selling a missile system to Iraq in a power play (This is undesirable as it could give them inside information about out high performance aircraft systems ). . 

 

I wasn't around at the time, but find it hard to imagine that in the post-war era there was ever a pro-war sentiment in the news media.

that probably depends on public sentiment, but war and death is rarely popular, not with me.

The shift I was talking about started with cable TV and accelerated with the internet and then again with social media. And things are not the same for different countries. For instance, Germany has a very different media landscape to the one in the US. We were very lucky in that Murdoch had no luck here.

you believe in luck?

So no, it is not relative. There are very clear differences and the left-wing-media is not a mirror-image to the right-wing-media. MSNBC has a bias, but they are also fact-based. This simply isn't the case for much of the right-wing media. When your world-view is machiavellian, the truth doesn't matter.

Opinions vary and truth is an etherial philosophical concept.

JR

 

[L´Andratté]

Warum Deutschlands Lockdown falsch ist – und Schweden vieles besser macht

"In summary, countries such as Sweden, South Korea and Taiwan have acted wisely in their absence of lockdowns. The virologists there led the population and politics through the crisis with a steady hand, instead of unsettling them by constantly changing course. The corona virus was successfully contained without harm to fundamental rights and jobs. Germany should take this policy as an example."

Interesting take, the swedish government definitly has balls of steel.
Problem for me I can´t verify anything, I can´t even find a hint if the statistic is
normalized for population size?

Opinions vary and truth is an etherial philosophical concept.

That is the weakest of all arguments. It is an etherial philosophical concept itself. Next time you drop a brick on your foot, tell yourself it isn´t real.

But even if you deny truth there should better be at least a common narrative to keep the society together, but manipulating/denying the common narrative is a very powerful tool, that´s why Trump likes it.
It is also very destructive, eroding the roots of a society as one whole. This is the part he doesn´t give a shit about. That is also what makes people warn about a potential new civil war (I don´t see the US at that point, but I understand the connection).  With his Georgia related back and forth Trump is effectivly gaslighting the public. Denying all responsibility and even the words said a couple of moments ago or knowledge of people from within his circle. Stating this man is doing the job of a POTUS is indeed requiring the truth to be an etherial philosopical concept...

 

[scott2000]

Interesting take, the swedish government definitly has balls of steel.
Problem for me I can´t verify anything, I can´t even find a hint if the statistic is
normalized for population size?

Yeah. The little bit that I've labored through trying to translate gets just as contentious as anything I find here in the states. The topic of ending quarantine or who is behind it maybe shouldn't be perpetuated as some conspiracy that is specific to the US when the entire planet seems to be questioning what is going on to some extent.


Too bad there isn't some auto translate feature for the browsers that could make reading what is going on in non-English articles and discussions much easier .  From what I can tell, from translating and reading reddit, etc... things aren't much different when it comes to people debating in/about  their respective countries or others ..

 

[JohnRoberts]

Interesting take, the swedish government definitly has balls of steel.
Problem for me I can´t verify anything, I can´t even find a hint if the statistic is
normalized for population size?

That is the weakest of all arguments. It is an etherial philosophical concept itself. Next time you drop a brick on your foot, tell yourself it isn´t real.

A brick accelerated by gravity is an objective fact.... What passes for "truth" and more importantly "lies" in political discussions (like this) is far more subjective

But even if you deny truth there should better be at least a common narrative to keep the society together, but manipulating/denying the common narrative is a very powerful tool, that´s why Trump likes it.

mind reading again?

It is also very destructive, eroding the roots of a society as one whole. This is the part he doesn´t give a sh*t about. That is also what makes people warn about a potential new civil war (I don´t see the US at that point, but I understand the connection).  With his Georgia related back and forth Trump is effectivly gaslighting the public. Denying all responsibility and even the words said a couple of moments ago or knowledge of people from within his circle. Stating this man is doing the job of a POTUS is indeed requiring the truth to be an etherial philosopical concept...

Nice try to twist my words as some partisan talking point... I am capable of forming my own thoughts.

Repetition is getting boring.

JR

 

[living sounds]

Sweden has around 12% of the population of Germany, but is fast approaching half as many Coronavirus deaths. The daily death rate in the last week in Sweden was already 80% of Germany's in the same period. Active cases in Germany have been declining since April 07, while they are still steadily rising in Sweden. Daily new cases in Germany peaked on March 27, but on April 23 in Sweden. I think anyone can see where Swedens strategy is leading...

 

[manulaudic]

Sweden has around 12% of the population of Germany, but is fast approaching half as many Coronavirus deaths. The daily death rate in the last week in Sweden was already 80% of Germany's in the same period. Active cases in Germany have been declining since April 07, while they are still steadily rising in Sweden. Daily new cases in Germany peaked on March 27, but on April 23 in Sweden. I think anyone can see where Swedens strategy is leading...

It's hard to know where numbers need to be taken from.

Germany is only reporting "covid19" related death while many countries are simply putting every death in the "covid19" pandemic period. If you take France fro example, a big portion of deaths didn't happen in hospitals and no autopsy is being done so it's impossible to tell if they really died from Covid19, since most death are within the weaken and old, one could argue they simply died sooner than expected.
So comparing Sweden and Germany simply by numbers is wrong, as we have no idea to clearly verify those.

On another note, who knows how many deaths will be related to "Quarantine" effect, suicides, poverty, famine in the poorest countries. I doubt anyone will try to calculate these and it could spread over the span of a few years and we don't tend to talk much about death numbers outside the rich countries.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Apparently Elon Musk is not a fan of the quarantine, but apparently they say it's all about making money....

I don't think he even knows how much money he has let alone would put employees at risk for a little more (but i can't read his mind, just making an educated guess).

But when facts aren't on you side the arguments turn personal, so he must not care about his employee's health? 

JR

PS: warning if you search his actual comments some cursing and hyperbolic comparisons to fascism were involved, so you were warned.

 

[john12ax7]

Apparently Elon Musk is not a fan of the quarantine, but apparently they say it's all about making money....

I don't think he even knows how much money he has let alone would put employees at risk for a little more (but i can't read his mind, just making an educated guess).

You mean the guy who thinks he's above the law,  who kept the factory production running since the stock was imploding, with employees crammed into shuttle buses each day.  Othes complied but with him the county sheriff had to step in.

The size of someone's bank account and their compassion for others are generally inversely related.

Edit: Looked it up and he has a 750 million pay day coming soon if they can sustain their share price,  so obviously a personal incentive to not have a company closure.

So honestly rather baffled at the implication that an abundance of money would cause an increase in caring for employees. Have you seen this happen often?

 

[scott2000]

U.S. Navy Blue Angels
April 27 at 6:55 AM ·

#AmericaStrong ANNOUNCEMENT: We’re heading your way New York City, Newark, Trenton and Philadelphia on Tuesday!

"Check out the overhead times and route on the graphic below.

Residents should observe the flyover from the safety of their home-quarantine and should refrain from traveling to see the flyover. Social distancing should be practiced at all times.

Stay home and stay safe!"


LOL.....

Watch the flyover from the safety of your home quarantine....

 

[JohnRoberts]

The size of someone's bank account and their compassion for others are generally inversely related.

I am not aware that was a rule, while a popular perception when bashing successful people.

Edit: Looked it up and he has a 750 million pay day coming soon if they can sustain their share price,  so obviously a personal incentive to not have a company closure.

didn't have to look it up, widely reported by the quarantine forever crowd.

So honestly rather baffled at the implication that an abundance of money would cause an increase in caring for employees.

straw man... I didn't imply that, my point is that I doubt he keeps score by marginal earnings gains, but neither you or I can read his mind. It might be an interesting read as he is well above average intelligence.

Have you seen this happen often?

I have only personally experienced a handful of what I would consider really wealthy people. Most first generation rich (those who earned their own money, and didn't inherit it) that I've known were generally quite frugal (so tight you can hear their ass squeak when they walk).

That said there are several mega wealthy types who are openly generous publicly. Bill Gates is an obvious example of a person with more money than he could spend in several lifetimes so he uses that wealth for higher purposes (fighting childhood disease), but he is likewise a target of multiple conspiracy theories (submit your favorite here).

JR

PS: I consider it instructive that these uber wealthy types don't just give their excess wealth to government to spend. They believe they can do more good with it than government and I think they are correct. That said they generally endorse other people paying higher income taxes  (they already got their wealth). 

 

[john12ax7]

I am not aware that was a rule, while a popular perception when bashing successful people.

Greed and exploitation of others has been studied and documented throughout human history. It's not a new popular perception. Scripture warns of the difficulty in being both rich and a good person.

straw man... I didn't imply that, my point is that I doubt he keeps score by marginal earnings gains, but neither you or I can read his mind. It might be an interesting read as he is well above average intelligence.

"I don't think he even knows how much money he has let alone would put employees at risk for a little more"

Perhaps clarify what the above means then, as you seem to be linking amount of money someone has with their treatment of employees.

I have only personally experienced a handful of what I would consider really wealthy people. Most first generation rich (those who earned their own money, and didn't inherit it) that I've known were generally quite frugal (so tight you can hear their ass squeak when they walk).

I've known a few of this type as well, and their cheapness tends to also extend to their treatment of employees. Trying to skirt regulations to save money,. Only offering paid leave as mandated by law. Demanding hard work and long hours while paying below market wages.

I think we both support capitalism. With Musk you have someone who has made billions due to being subsidized by the taxpayer, his businesses are not viable in a free market economy. It can be an uphill battle getting some to see the benefits of capitalism, I don't think citing / defending him helps the cause.

 

[manulaudic]

That said there are several mega wealthy types who are openly generous publicly. Bill Gates is an obvious example of a person with more money than he could spend in several lifetimes so he uses that wealth for higher purposes (fighting childhood disease), but he is likewise a target of multiple conspiracy theories (submit your favorite here).

Oh WOW, i mean how can you be thinking Gates is generous? His foundation is investing in oil and coil production, GMO, Monsanto and Bayer, Vaccines and medication, Junk food companies , coca cola... the list goes on forever... These companies clearly kill by millions !
He has never used his money to help anyone but himself, Microsoft being his best example, destroying free coding etc...
That person has more money than anyone could spend, you got that right, but ask yourself a simple question. If you had that money, would you spend it in every single company that destroys our ecosystem and creates massive inequalities between individuals? He isn't a philanthropist, he is a selfish person that we allowed to get so wealthy that he is now more powerful than governments. Where is our democracy? we're gonna let a few people who know nothing about decide our futur?

Should we also look at his tax evasions? We're talking billions that should have gotten back to people for you are citing he is supposed to be supporting: better life, schools, healthcare...

I mean