Connect with us

News

Elizabeth Warren Criticizes Twitter’s Ban On Political Ads Because It Covers Climate Change

Published

on

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is not at all happy with Twitter’s recent decision to ban political ads because they block ads about climate change, one of the many pet issues that Democrats have been running on for the last several election cycles.

Here’s more from The Daily Wire:

But her concerns seem to end at social media political ads she disagrees with. When Twitter announced a crackdown on political ads — like the one Warren is pushing for Facebook — Warren lashed out at the social media platform for censoring important content because Twitter’s definition of “politics” includes contentious issues like “climate change.”

Trending: Tokyo Woke No Mo’: IOC Bans BLM Apparel for Olympics

“Twitter’s new ad policy will allow fossil fuel companies to buy ads defending themselves and spreading misleading info—but won’t allow organizations fighting the climate crisis to buy ads holding those companies accountable. We need accountability,” the Democratic presidential contender wailed in a tweet.

Just last month, Warren, of course, made the opposite argument against Facebook, buying an intentionally misleading political ad on the social network to demonstrate that Facebook does not adquately police purchased content.

The ad in question started off by claiming that Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook CEO, endorsed Donald Trump for president and went on to end with Warren revealing the whole ad was a farce meant to see if the Facebook ad censors would approve of the advertisement.

Warren said the ad “got approved quickly.”

Facebook responded that the FCC doesn’t want broadcast companies censoring candidates’ free speech saying it’s better for voters to decide, not companies.

Twitter on the other hand is taking the opposite approach. The social media giant announced last week they would be policing all political content — including issue-based content — on its platform as part of its effort to combat the spread of misinformation.

News

CDC Readies Cruises, Complete with Human Guinea Pigs

Fingers crossed!

Published

on

As the world prepares for its grand reopening, there are a number of high value industries that are eagerly awaiting permission from medical authorities to resume operations. First and foremost, there are the service industries:  Places like restaurants, bars, music venues, and sports arenas whose entire livelihood depends on whether or not people are being allowed to gather in public.  While many of these venues are now beginning to ramp up their capacity, there are issues bringing some of these workers back into the fold thanks to the enhanced unemployment benefits provided by the federal government. And then there’s the tourism industry, whose regulatory structure is far more susceptible to interference by government agencies. Now, after over a year of stagnation, it appears as though at least one facet of this wide-ranging corporate amalgam will be given a chance to sail on. Cruise lines can soon begin trial voyages in U.S. waters with volunteer passengers helping test whether the ships can sail safely during a pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gave ship operators final technical guidelines Wednesday for the trial runs. The CDC action is a step toward resuming cruises in U.S. waters, possibly by July, for the first time since March 2020. A spokeswoman for the cruise industry’s trade group said the group was reviewing the CDC instructions. So, how will this work? Each practice cruise — they’ll run two to seven days — must have enough passengers to meet at least 10% of the ship’s capacity. Volunteers must be 18 or older and either fully vaccinated or free of medical conditions that would put them at high risk for severe COVID-19. The ship operator must tell passengers that they are simulating untested safety measures “and that sailing during a pandemic is an inherently risky activity,” the…

Continue Reading

News

Strange New Correlation Discovered Between COVID and Bald Men

This strain of coronavirus just keeps getting weirder.

Published

on

From the very onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the medical community appeared stumped.  Sure, this was a novel virus and, as such, came complete with a number of strange and unknown consequences. There were your “long-haulers”; folks who seemed to continually have issues recovering from the illness.  Others lost their senses of taste and smell, sometimes for months on end.  There were even reports of so-called “COVID toes” – an ailment that affected the coloration of the skin on toes and fingers of a small percentage of patients. Now, in another odd correlation within the coronavirus spectrum, it appears that men who’d gone bald are at particular risk for certain side effects of COVID-19. New research suggests they spend up to twice as long in hospital with Covid than those who still have a full head of hair. Science seems to have at least some idea of why this is. They are also admitted to intensive care in higher numbers. Scientists say men’s Covid vulnerability largely comes down to male sex hormones called androgens. Men who are genetically more sensitive to androgens appear to be more likely to suffer severe Covid. They are also more likely to have hair loss, called androgenetic alopecia, which affects around half of men over the age of 50. The science seemed to back this up. A team of US doctors measured men’s sensitivity to androgens by counting a chemical called CAG. High levels indicate that a man is more likely to have hair loss. Of 65 men hospitalised with the infection, those with high CAG levels had worse Covid outcomes in the 60 days following their hospitlisation. They spent 47 days in hospital, on average, and 70.6 per cent were admitted to ICU. For comparison, those with low CAG levels spent an average of 25 days…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week