You are agreeing with Facebook while seemingly disagreeing furiously.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Here's a research paper discussing disposable masks and their efficiency after 24 hours of use, showing that it is still highly effective. Perhaps if you were more specific about the kind of mask you're talking about, we could find the appropriate research to support for your claim of fact. Even better, you could post the research you're using to support your claim.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
I mean: if one is punished or "held accountable" (as it's put here, frequently) for expressing something diametrically opposed to other POVs, then that's not free speech. To quote Chomsky (an absolute-ist when it comes to free speech):
Ah. Any form of punishment or accountability is not the standard for free speech. In fact, freedom of speech requires that you can be held accountable or "punished" socially by others exercising their own free speech. Freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom from accountability, in fact it is nearly the opposite of that idea. Freedom of speech means freedom from force being used against you to prevent some speech. Since it is generally illegal for a private citizen to initiate force against you, it is generally limited to the prevention of government force against someone to prevent or compel speech.
Zero questions to Facebook, their platform, their rules, their way to enforce them.
You ignored my point.
Did you ever tried to wear face mask for 8 or 12 hours? This is test of it performance against COVID, not of its effect on people.
You have not demonstrated that the government used force against Facebook. This is an unsubstantiated factual claim. Please provide supporting evidence.
I didn't understand your point. That's not the same thing.
Yes. But your point was not about its effect on people, your point was about having to change it 4-5 times a day. Are you just abandoning that point? It would be courteous for you to at least acknowledge that you were wrong on that point.
I have no idea what you're talking about then.
What is there to disagree with? That is what free speech means in the US constitution. Were you not talking about the US constitution? Your quote was definitely talking about it.
I am not. This is expression of opinion, it couldn't be misinformation until its proven wrong.
Not sure what are you talking about. I didn't say that if you didn't change the mask after 4h you would be sick with COVID. I said that masks as protective measure of people effective if its being regularly changed. You can't wear it multiple days for 8h and stay healthy.
No. I not only didn't ignore it again, I didn't even ignore it once.
And now you're pretending like I didn't.
Free speech is expression which isn't limited to pure speech not subject to legitimate action by the state or similarly governing body, either direct as by penalty or prosecution, or indirect as by adjudication of civil claims. In the absence of such action, there is no free speech concern. Individuals, or collectives thereof, criticizing speech or conditioning association on speech norms is not counter to expressive freedom, rather it's exercise of individual rights.
The Chomsky what wrote to downplay atrocities perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge and further sought to downplay such by engaging publishers and urging them to discount testimony by refugees resulting from the Cambodian genocide? That Chomsky?
Is there precident for the sole act of performing a Nazi salute warranting further action?
I only knew of the case of the odious "Count Dankula".
Disgusting, but I believe it shouldn't be restricted on country level anywhere. Administrative fine if forbidden by local rules?
Acceptable behaviour, not really. Acceptable out come in terms of policing, yeah, pretty much.
I'm not sure that's true.
www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk
www.independent.co.uk
