Ehhh. I'm not onboard with Zuck myself. But, let's look at this on the face of the article.
The video was taped 7.16.20, where he was questioning whether it had long term effects on DNA or RNA. His conference with Fauci was in November where Fauci clarified, no effects on DNA as it is natural to your structure and would get cleared out, eventually.
Now, I'm not at all defending Zuck, Fauci or this vaccine. But, looking over the article, this doesn't seem as much a gotcha as the first impression reads.
I think the point is more that Zuckerberg is allowed to have a differing opinion from the narrative, but will censored any other dissenters. The vaccine just happens to be the talking point here.
So Zuck was skeptical of the vaccine, as many of us are. At least, in his mind, this position is a reasonable position to take. From the clips it sounds like his position was pretty extreme too, considered "conspiratorial" by today's standard.
We can assume then that he gets more information and changes his position.
It might be as simple as one conversation with Fauci. Who knows. It doesn't matter. He changes his mind and decides the vaccine is safe.
Zuck then decides to use his mega-platform to censor anyone who believes what he, himself, believed at one point. He is essentially saying that this position is now considered unreasonable and conspiratorial.
That is not the action of a responsible actor. I wouldn't mind it if he used his megaphone to try and inform people to change their minds - as his mind was changed. But by censoring and banning people from the internet who disagree with this "state position", hes making the situation worse. Censorship is almost always the wrong action.
Imagine if Zuck then decided to attend a conference in Iran and speak to a few radical Holocaust deniers. After being convinced by their arguments he returns to Facebook and decides to censor anyone claiming the Holocaust happened.
There's quite a bit of gotcha left. This still means that when he has doubts, he deserves a considered answer. But once he's convinced, nobody else is allowed to have any doubts.
And for my part, I don't see how that one remark by Fauci would mean that there are no additional theoretical risks compared to older vaccines, which in that case would require a much larger and stricter testing programme before it can be concluded to be safe.
Well and we don't know that his answer is truthful even. Many virologists and other scientists are warning that this shot will effect your body responses like immune system over activation, sterility (by attacking a specific protein that is involved in placenta building, or even cancers. There are so many deaths already directly after this vaccine that are NOT being reported on- old people who survived covid now dying from the vaccine- the adverse events are already at least 10x that of flu shots. This thing scares the crap out of me. That pregnant doctor who got it then lost her baby immediately!
Ehhh. I'm not onboard with Zuck myself. But, let's look at this on the face of the article.
The video was taped 7.16.20, where he was questioning whether it had long term effects on DNA or RNA. His conference with Fauci was in November where Fauci clarified, no effects on DNA as it is natural to your structure and would get cleared out, eventually.
Now, I'm not at all defending Zuck, Fauci or this vaccine. But, looking over the article, this doesn't seem as much a gotcha as the first impression reads.
This!!
I think the point is more that Zuckerberg is allowed to have a differing opinion from the narrative, but will censored any other dissenters. The vaccine just happens to be the talking point here.
Bingo
He expresses some valid concerns, but heaven forbid you have those same concerns and post on his website
Yeah, but i'll pick at this line of thought.
So Zuck was skeptical of the vaccine, as many of us are. At least, in his mind, this position is a reasonable position to take. From the clips it sounds like his position was pretty extreme too, considered "conspiratorial" by today's standard.
We can assume then that he gets more information and changes his position.
It might be as simple as one conversation with Fauci. Who knows. It doesn't matter. He changes his mind and decides the vaccine is safe.
Zuck then decides to use his mega-platform to censor anyone who believes what he, himself, believed at one point. He is essentially saying that this position is now considered unreasonable and conspiratorial.
That is not the action of a responsible actor. I wouldn't mind it if he used his megaphone to try and inform people to change their minds - as his mind was changed. But by censoring and banning people from the internet who disagree with this "state position", hes making the situation worse. Censorship is almost always the wrong action.
Imagine if Zuck then decided to attend a conference in Iran and speak to a few radical Holocaust deniers. After being convinced by their arguments he returns to Facebook and decides to censor anyone claiming the Holocaust happened.
There's quite a bit of gotcha left. This still means that when he has doubts, he deserves a considered answer. But once he's convinced, nobody else is allowed to have any doubts.
And for my part, I don't see how that one remark by Fauci would mean that there are no additional theoretical risks compared to older vaccines, which in that case would require a much larger and stricter testing programme before it can be concluded to be safe.
Well and we don't know that his answer is truthful even. Many virologists and other scientists are warning that this shot will effect your body responses like immune system over activation, sterility (by attacking a specific protein that is involved in placenta building, or even cancers. There are so many deaths already directly after this vaccine that are NOT being reported on- old people who survived covid now dying from the vaccine- the adverse events are already at least 10x that of flu shots. This thing scares the crap out of me. That pregnant doctor who got it then lost her baby immediately!
Gateway Pundit screws up pretty much every article it runs by taking a kernel of truth and going too far, damaging its credibility.