Hi everyone, Lat week I participated in a Soho Forum debate against Kate Klonick about government-fuelled social media censorship. I ended up winning the debate by a large margin — thanks to the audience for engaging and keeping an open mind. For those who weren’t in New York City, you can watch the debate (link above). Let me know your thoughts in the comments below!
Totally agree. Jay is an amazing ambassador for the free speech cause! It seemed like Kate was totally unprepared, and did not have a good mastery of the basic facts.
She already lost me at the 4min mark. I will watch the rest, but wow Dr Jay - it feels like this was a slam dunk. Appreciate all you have done and continue to do.
You did great. It’s almost unbelievable that people are willing to take the position to argue for censorship, she even said she would probably lose in a vote.
Thank you, Dr. J! You are my favorite "fringe' doctor! I like to try to simplify an issue as much as possible so I can understand what the most basic premise is concerning an issue. Your opponent talked mostly about theoretical issues and feelings and politics (Repuplican Attorneys General) and never concisely addressed the issue except to say Missouri v Biden was "too broad". I think the real issue is, are people truly being given an informed consent? Whether that be on medical issues or the behind-the-scenes machinations
of where the virus came from. By not allowing people to know that there are opposing viewpoints, or that there may not really be a true consensus on an issue, whether that's from coerced speech guidelines or flat-out deception or a simple misunderstanding or framing of the discussion at hand, it's wrong and misleading.
The simple fact that Missouri v Biden is not widely carried by most (all?)of the major news outlets, is very telling. Most people have no understanding of what occurred during the pandemic and probably is still continuing in various forms. Having "secret" algorithms and govrnment coercion activities cannot be good for an informed public, regardless of whether it's called governance or censorship. That is a sad state of affairs for all of us and needs to be eliminated. If we don't have the courts involved in trying to help set guidelines for speech then we'll have no recourse at all in times like this.
Fantastic work Dr. Jay! I got the impression your opponent didn’t want to be there with you. Probably because she knew she was out ‘manned’ and out ‘gunned’!
Bravo and WELL DONE. The woman arguing the other side of the debate sounded like a government shill. Why is she arguing against humanity’s best interests? It’s like she is literally the devil’s advocate.
this lady is difficult to listen to. lots of lies & half truths.
Parlor was DEPLATFORMED by all web hosting companies (amazon, google/alphabet) after Jan 6 - even though it was quickly pointed out that most of the protests organized on FACEBOOK!
I’ve only watched (actually, listened to) two debates of this type (this one and Taibbi/Murray v. Gladwell/Goldberg), but it is fascinating that in both of those debates, one side seemed to come out swinging with condescension, straw men, and ad hominem attacks while the other...well, just didn’t.
Klonick seems like a bad fit for this debate. She is almost perfunctory, and certainly unfocused and apparently uninformed. Her claims didn’t seem to be supported by evidence. Did she read and analyze Missouri v. Biden? It didn’t seem like she had a grasp of the subject matter. It’s a pity.
Kate had nothing to defend, and it was apparent. How is it that half, or more than half the country can;t see through what was done during the pandemic? I remember so very well rhetorical first time the government made the claim that the vaccines were safe and effective. I turned to my husband and Sid, “They can’t know that. Studies haven’t been done”, and I’m a nobody, but any fool should have seen through that.
and of course YouTube still puts a COVID info warning on the video. FFS.
Kate seemed very annoyed presenting her case and condescending. Dr Jay as always appeared calm and un ~ruffled.
Totally agree. Jay is an amazing ambassador for the free speech cause! It seemed like Kate was totally unprepared, and did not have a good mastery of the basic facts.
She already lost me at the 4min mark. I will watch the rest, but wow Dr Jay - it feels like this was a slam dunk. Appreciate all you have done and continue to do.
To be fair, the case for free speech in this situation IS a slam dunk.
It would be harder to argue for free speech if the VAX were actually clearly good and had zero side effects. And gave us “zero transmission”, etc.
Then, the case to speak freely against the VAX would feel hard. Free speech would be weighed against deaths caused by that speech.
BUT, it is the nature of science that “all” is never known, and, nonetheless, freedom comes first.
Freedom, I think, ultimately requires that we have a thoughtful and educated citizenry, who can sift through the noise.
I pray that that remains so. There is so much propaganda. And so many “toys” that make us so emotional.
Who / what is Kate Klonick ? She was terrible; she stood up there and lied. Poor Kate.
You did great. It’s almost unbelievable that people are willing to take the position to argue for censorship, she even said she would probably lose in a vote.
ROCK ON!!!
Good job, Jay!
Thank you, Dr. J! You are my favorite "fringe' doctor! I like to try to simplify an issue as much as possible so I can understand what the most basic premise is concerning an issue. Your opponent talked mostly about theoretical issues and feelings and politics (Repuplican Attorneys General) and never concisely addressed the issue except to say Missouri v Biden was "too broad". I think the real issue is, are people truly being given an informed consent? Whether that be on medical issues or the behind-the-scenes machinations
of where the virus came from. By not allowing people to know that there are opposing viewpoints, or that there may not really be a true consensus on an issue, whether that's from coerced speech guidelines or flat-out deception or a simple misunderstanding or framing of the discussion at hand, it's wrong and misleading.
The simple fact that Missouri v Biden is not widely carried by most (all?)of the major news outlets, is very telling. Most people have no understanding of what occurred during the pandemic and probably is still continuing in various forms. Having "secret" algorithms and govrnment coercion activities cannot be good for an informed public, regardless of whether it's called governance or censorship. That is a sad state of affairs for all of us and needs to be eliminated. If we don't have the courts involved in trying to help set guidelines for speech then we'll have no recourse at all in times like this.
Thank you!
Fantastic work Dr. Jay! I got the impression your opponent didn’t want to be there with you. Probably because she knew she was out ‘manned’ and out ‘gunned’!
You have always towered above the crowd. Please continue. You don’t always have to be so polite/ nice. (It’s a commendable quality)
Bravo and WELL DONE. The woman arguing the other side of the debate sounded like a government shill. Why is she arguing against humanity’s best interests? It’s like she is literally the devil’s advocate.
this lady is difficult to listen to. lots of lies & half truths.
Parlor was DEPLATFORMED by all web hosting companies (amazon, google/alphabet) after Jan 6 - even though it was quickly pointed out that most of the protests organized on FACEBOOK!
I’ve only watched (actually, listened to) two debates of this type (this one and Taibbi/Murray v. Gladwell/Goldberg), but it is fascinating that in both of those debates, one side seemed to come out swinging with condescension, straw men, and ad hominem attacks while the other...well, just didn’t.
Interesting.
Plain speech vs word salad. No contest.
Klonick seems like a bad fit for this debate. She is almost perfunctory, and certainly unfocused and apparently uninformed. Her claims didn’t seem to be supported by evidence. Did she read and analyze Missouri v. Biden? It didn’t seem like she had a grasp of the subject matter. It’s a pity.
Kate had nothing to defend, and it was apparent. How is it that half, or more than half the country can;t see through what was done during the pandemic? I remember so very well rhetorical first time the government made the claim that the vaccines were safe and effective. I turned to my husband and Sid, “They can’t know that. Studies haven’t been done”, and I’m a nobody, but any fool should have seen through that.