The fact is a large part of the population isn't that smart and needs protection or they'll be taken advantage of.
So they have smarter and much better informed and educated people protect them.

I agree with your comment, but wouldn't phrase this in this way. Instead, I'd say that most people have limited time and resources to find out what's in everything they eat, drink, or use. Suppose all product safety laws were repealed tomorrow and companies needed to rely on people trusting that their product was what they said it was. How much would you be able to verify? Could you verify that the drugs you purchased to treat a medical condition (everything from current OTC medication like aspirin to current prescription medication) was actually safe, effective, and contained what it said it did? How would you even verify that the ibuprofen you purchased had ibuprofen in it and wasn't just sugar pills or some opioid instead?

Furthermore, since this would apply to all products, could you verify that the bread, eggs, milk, and other groceries you purchased were safe to eat and contained what they said they did? Even if a person spent every single hour of the day, I doubt they could verify half of the stuff they use on a daily basis. So we outsource it to the government and trust that they will ensure that the items are safe, effective, and contain what they claim to contain. Is it a perfect system? Definitely not, but it's better than "let companies do whatever they want and require customers to verify that the companies are being honest."

Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/

Twitter is a private company which means they get to set the rules for how they operate. Apart from some basic ground rules set by the federal government (along the lines of "you can't say that only white people can tweet"), Freedom of Speech doesn't apply to them. They could decide that only Progressives could tweet and everyone from Centrist Democrats to the far right would be instantly banned and they'd be within their right to do so. It might be a bad business decision to do this, but that's another discussion.

Freedom of Speech means that the government can't stop you from saying things. (There are some exceptions like death threats and the like.) So if the government took over control of Twitter, they wouldn't be able to ban you for statements they didn't like. As long as Twitter is a private company, though, Freedom of Speech doesn't apply.

They appear to be going by their policy. She was locked out for a day about a month ago. Now, she has a week ban. Next up would be a lifetime ban.

We should fight lies with the truth, rather than with bans and censorship

While I agree with you in theory, in practice we've seen repeatedly that the truth isn't as fast as lies are. Greene and her ilk will claim 5 things about COVID/Vaccines that aren't true. While we're debunking numbers 1 and 2, they'll put in 5 more ridiculous lies. We debunk 4 and 5 but now there are 5 new lies that just came in and we haven't even started the second batch of lies. You can attempt to tackle all of the lies (and get further and further behind), you can skip some of their lies (and have them claim that you've accepted them as truth since you didn't try to refute them), or you could ignore their lies (allowing people to accept them as truth without them being refuted).

It's even gotten to the point that fighting lies with truth doesn't work because they just scream "FAKE NEWS" at the truth and continue with the lie. They'll say "COVID vaccines cause sterility." You'll post a study proving that this is false. They'll scream "FAKE NEWS! Wake up sheeple. Do your own research and use your brain!" before going right back to claiming that their sterility claim is true.

We've gotten to the point where basic evidence and truth isn't accepted if it doesn't fit their current worldview. If we take platform bans off the table, even if they're spreading dangerous medical disinformation, then I don't know how we fight this.

The Delta variant is hitting kids hard. My local hospital has a few kids with Delta in it and Texas announced that they have kids in their ICUs and on ventilators due to COVID. The "COVID only strikes the old" line isn't true anymore. (Well, it wasn't really true to begin with, but it's definitely not true anymore.)

"Open debate" also assumes there are two sides of every issue. This isn't always the case. To give an example, back when I was in college my school newspaper decided to run an ad from a Holocaust denier that said that the Holocaust never happened. I confronted the editor asking why he chose to publish that. He answered that he wanted to show both sides of the issue. Except there weren't "two sides" here. The Holocaust provably happened. Saying it didn't isn't "another side", it's straight out false.

With COVID-19, we know many things due to science. Yes, early on information was sketchy and changing. Maybe some people could have been forgiven then for thinking A when the science had moved on to B. Now, though, we know much more about COVID-19. It is a deadly disease - having killed over 4 million people worldwide. There are also people who survive, but with severe medical issues (heart and lung damage). If you can avoid COVID-19 then it's much better than getting it and rolling the dice on whether you'll be fine, survive with heart/lung damage, or die. We also know that the vaccines work and are safe. Although each new variant seems to reduce their effectiveness, they are better than nothing and we might be able to improve the effectiveness with boosters. (This is still being hashed out.)

In any case, the pandemic would be a lot less severe if everyone who could be vaccinated was vaccinated. Anyone saying "the vaccines have tracking microchips in them," "the vaccine turns you magnetic," "people who get the vaccine die in 2 months," or any of the dozens of other conspiracy theories out there aren't "the other side of the story." They're spreading false information and actually helping the virus to spread.

Once you've been infected, you're not "safe from death or debilitation." In fact, that's when your danger is the highest. Letting people get infected and then treating them with Monoclonal Antibodies is a horrible idea. First of all, the supply of Monoclonal Antibodies would quickly be exhausted. Not everyone would be able to be treated with them. Also, Monoclonal Antibodies aren't a cure-all. They can help in some circumstances, but they don't guarantee complete recovery. You can still die or wind up with long lasting side effects from the infection (including heart damage akin to having had a heart attack or lung damage worse than a smoker's lungs).

Finally, the whole "natural viral resistance vs artificial viral resistance" thing is false. Vaccines offer the same viral resistance as viral infections - only without the risk of damage from the virus. The vaccines use the same mechanism your immune system uses when a new virus infects you. Your body spots the invader, your immune system fights it off, and then your immune system remembers the invader. In the case of vaccines, though, the "invader" is a harmless stand-in for the real virus. Your immune system learns what the virus would look like and how to fight it without needing to face the real virus. This way, if/when it spots the real virus, your body will know what to do.

I'd compare it to training troops versus just dropping them into battle and hoping they'll figure it all out. The latter case may result in the battle being won and your troops learning how to fight the enemy, but you'll suffer more casualties. With training, the troops will hit the ground more prepared and able to draw on experience they gained before they ever saw actual combat. They will be more effective and win the battle easier with fewer casualties.

Not only that, but the equipment that's used to make a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine can be reused to make a Flu vaccine, cancer vaccine, or any other mRNA vaccine that they come up with. Just wash the equipment, load the new mRNA sequence in, and pump out vaccines. I've even heard reports that they're trying to make portable vaccine generation equipment. So a hospital could have an mRNA vaccine generator or you could load it on a truck in a third world country and generate vaccines right in the village that needs to be innoculated.

I'd just recommend doing this while in an Incognito tab so that the YouTube algorithm doesn't decide that you're really interested in vaccine disinformation and start recommending more videos about how horrible the vaccines are.

I'd say the difference between the anti-vax on the left and the anti-vax on the right is that the left's anti-vax has little if any political power. Not many politicians on the left would demand that the ACA cover homeopathic medicine and ban vaccines in exchange for supporting the next bill coming down the pike. Too many of the Republicans, however, have made anti-vaccination (and anti-science in general) a core tenant of their political philosophy. Even the Republicans who recently switched to being pro-vaccine (likely because they realized that if the people who voted for them died then they wouldn't get re-elected) were wishy-washy about it. "I'd urge people to get vaccinated, but then again it's a personal choice."

Unfortunately, she seems to revel in her stupidity and treat it like a pro instead of a con. In fact, there's a large portion of this country that looks down upon intelligent and educated folks as being worth less than outright stupid folks. If they had their way, they'd drag us all down to their level.

I do the same thing all the time. I type out "HIPPA" and then have to stop and try to remember if it's two P's and an A or one P and two A's. I just keep in mind that it's the "Accountability Act" which has two A's.

(*) If she wasn't she'd answer "no". She's invoking HIPAA, so...

And that's not even what HIPAA is for. Anyone can ask you about medical events without violating HIPAA. You can decide to share your medical information without HIPAA being impacted at all. It's when medical staff (doctors, nurses, even IT staff in a hospital) start sharing medical information without the patient's consent and without it being in the course of treatment for the patient that HIPAA comes into play. If I was a nurse treating you and then I talked to another nurse in an elevator and told them all about your medical history, that would be violating HIPAA. If I was a reporter and asked a person about some medical issue they encountered, HIPAA wouldn't be involved at all.

There's a group of people who seem to misunderstand HIPAA either intentionally or just because they hear half of what the law is for and just assume the rest.

Keep in mind that a 5 year sentence also destroys his future. This kid will almost certainly not go to college. Imagine if this reckless bastard got a job working for the Sacklers (Opiod manufacterers).

This is true. For better or worse, pretty much any job asks if you've ever been convicted of a crime. Checking that "yes" box is basically saying "please toss this application in the trash ASAP." There are many reasons why this shouldn't be asked (except in high security positions). It leads to people who committed non-violent offenses not being able to get decent jobs. This, in turn, pushes up recidivism. (If you can't get a real job, it's more likely you'll turn to crime to survive.) I support getting rid of this box, though perhaps it should ask if you've ever been convicted of a violent crime. In his case, he would still need to check the box since his crime resulted in death.

I've got to agree. He engaged in an action which resulted in the death of a person. Even if we're being extremely generous and accepted that he didn't realize that swatting could kill a person before, he definitely knew it afterwards. So trying it again is definitely trying to kill someone again. Plus I'm sure there are other charges. He laughed about wiping his phone before investigators could get it. That's destruction of evidence. Normally, I'm not in favor of piling charges on, but in this instance the guy deserves it. Hopefully, during his five years in prison, he faces multiple additional charges that add on to his time. He'll likely also face civil suits which - while they won't add to his prison term - will assure that any money he gets goes to the victims and their families.