Free_Opinions

Well apparently they didn't exactly say they'd refuse to take it but voiced their scepticism about it nevertheless.

In September, Harris, then the Democratic Party’s vice-presidential candidate, hesitated when asked if she would take a vaccine that was approved before the election.

“I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump,” Harris said, “and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he’s talking about. I will not take his word for it.”

Cuomo went further, suggesting he mistrusted not just President Donald Trump, but also the Food and Drug Administration under Trump. Asked about his confidence in the FDA, Cuomo indicated he didn’t have much.

“I’m not that confident,” Cuomo said, adding: “You’re going to say to the American people now, ‘Here’s a vaccine, it was new, it was done quickly, but trust this federal administration and their health administration that it’s safe? And we’re not 100 percent sure of the consequences.’ I think it’s going to be a very skeptical American public about taking the vaccine, and they should be.”

Source

Sure, but the person I was replying to claimed that “Trump’s incompetence caused a million people to die,” and I was questioning whether all of that can really be blamed on him. Because I don’t think so. He was pro-vaccine from the beginning, and there were plenty of Democrat politicians saying they wouldn’t take “the Trump vaccine.”

And no, I don’t think the situation was handled optimally in the U.S. - but that was the case almost everywhere. Obviously, Trump isn’t without fault here, but placing all the blame on him feels disingenuous

Obviously you should post about it on Lemmy, upvote other posts about it and go into the comments telling the other people who despise him how much you do too. That should do the trick.

I don't know about others but I'm there for the porn

What would be an example of this? It's not obvious to me that by simply voting in a manner that benefits "the rich" then also means it's against your own interests. When someone gains something it doesn't mean I must lose something in exchange.

To claim they're not trying to combat the problem is a lie. I used to get several bot followers a day around a year ago. Now I got none and I've lost a ton of subscribers because the bot accounts are getting deleted. The amount of bots was also the reason Elon wanted to turn down the deal to begin with because twitter lied about it.

Also, misinformation can be combated with community notes. An open source feature I'm not aware of any other social media platform having.

Both of them. I take this kinds of things really hard and it takes me months to recover. I really hope I wouldn't need to go thru that ever again.

Name a social media platform without bots pretending to be real people.

So you want to ban the platforms you dont like/use but leave the ones you do?

The other is the same thing said differently. Not misinformation either.

5 million actual people telling you that ‘x’ political view is common and popular, causing you to doubt, or at least temper your own personal beliefs.

This isn't misinformation. Lemmy gives you skewed image of what political views are popular. Truth social does the exact same thing but from the opposite perspective. These are just groups of people self selecting onto platforms they most feel comfortable at. Having different political views to that of yours is not misinformation and platforms shouldn't be banned because of it.

Tell that to Musk; X bans TONS of people over their viewpoints.

Again, not in any way exclusive to twitter. Go take a look at lemmy.ml/modlog for example. These are both privately owned and the people running them are free to moderate however they desire. If you don't agree with it, then don't go there. That's what I do with .ml instances too.