Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Anti-Vax Activists Are Getting Filthy Rich

You are one dumb fuqker. What kind of challange is that. I will not post information about a family member for the likes of you. His children doesn't need to deal with an azz like you.

Yes they did screw it up right from the beginning when they shut down the country.

They should have had folks with health problems to take measures to protect themselves.

Because of the many half truths and out right lies that have been presented just how do they think folks that might have an idea about themselves believe anything that is said.

Just can't believe the press as well.

No you idiot, I don't care about your family members... who are you?

Well if what you believe is true.... my end is near... and why do you care?

I'm not against Covid vaccines and got the Moderna version with no issues. I have a graduate degree in biology and think that for most people over 60, it makes sense to get vaccinated. However, the study that Doc refers to was done by the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which is clearly a left wing group, so I would be skeptical of the articles they publish. I will say that there are many media campaigns that are run by a very small group of people running bots. So it's not unlikely that something like what is described in the article could occur, but I would want to see more evidence before accepting the conclusions they draw.

If I were a website with "science" in my name, and my article was about disinformation, I'd give specific examples of the disinformation and provide cites for why it is wrong. That was conspicuously absent from the article.

Nobody knows more than you, ltpowell.

Thanks for affirming how stupid you are.

You must have read a different article. "That figure is based on an analysis of over 812,000 posts extracted from Facebook and Twitter between 1 February and 16 March 2021" The article is a data reduction. Specific examples would dilute the intent of the argument.

I still have a long way to go to match you. In fact, with your head start, I never will.

There's a big difference between making a good profit on a product you make that helps people and making money by doing nothing but spread disinformation. I wouldn't be surprised if many here don't own stock in Big Pharma through the mutual funds in their IRAs/401Ks. They won't complain when their share prices go up.

You live in Michigan.

You’re anti-Trump.

You believe COVID is a concern.

I’d say that makes you as dumb as a hammer. LOL

I see that your intellect hasn't progressed since junior high.

You are saying supporting facts would dilute the intent? That is an absolutely breathtakingly beautiful example of liberal logic. The quote you provided has absolutely zero to do with my post.

So, are you going to take on 812,000 arguments? Think

Why did you quote my post? Best I can tell your post has nothing to do with Doc starting a discussion and not sticking around to have a discussion. Nor does it answer either of the two questions tin the post I quoted.

Of course they do. None of us knows as much as all of us. But even you have something to contribute.

"According to our recent report, anti-vaccine activists on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and Twitter reach more than 59 million followers, making these the largest and most important social media platforms for anti-vaxxers."


Not being a user of 3 out of 4 of these platforms, a couple thoughts:
1) sad that these are where some (many?) people get their news
2) I’m skeptical of any group that pushes for “ deplatforming” based on disagreement of view
3) are these not the same sites that many pro-covid vaxxers use to promote their own message?
4) isn’t this article merely pro-vax propaganda?

So, are you going to take on 812,000 arguments? Think[/quote]

Let me help you with your struggles Sparky. They are saying that they analyzed 812,000 posts that contained disinformation. I know this comes as a surprise to liberals, but saying something is wrong doesn't make it so. You'd think, in order to bolster their argument that they would give an example or two of what some of the disinformation was posted and support their claim that it is wrong with citations. That'ts what scientists are supposed to do. On top of that, if you are urging the platforms to strike the content and block the users, then from a moral standpoint, it would seem you'd want to support your claim that the content was wrong/incorrect/misinformation.

I know those concepts seem foreign to you.