Vaccine Passports/Permanent restrictions

[takno]

Does a significant amount of the population actually take these posters and adverts seriously? I certainly don't.

They clearly weren't meant as a joke. While I can dismiss them at the time quite happily, they do start to grind you down after a while

 

[35B]

And what do you think is happening in this country other than a sort of “dictatorship of the people”, albeit without the Soviet style communism (at least thus far)? All the "Stay home, save Lives!" & "Look into X's eyes type messaging is generating exactly the sort of reactions we see in Nineteen Eighty Four. Which is what I and other posters are referring to.

And is where you utterly miss the focus of Orwell's writing, which was on concepts like "Thought Crime" and "Newspeak", and the requirement of the Party that all members (not proles) should love Big Brother. The propaganda techniques were a side issue. When did you last read it?

Quoted from 1984:



Not exactly far off is it?



So far, this has seemed true.

From animal farm:

If Liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear

Our government has failed to notice this, hence the selective narrative and propaganda.

How can you read these and still claim no link.

Again, surface impressions from '1984', while the irony of someone not wanting to be told something quoting that passage from 'Animal Farm' is stunning.

The NHS clapping is a bit too close to the "Two minutes of hate" for my taste.

The first '1984' parallel I've seen that I can begin to agree with - and even there, the parallels are extremely faint.

More generally, you, and I, and us all have the liberty to debate these points, and to disagree vehemently with them. There has been no serious suggestion of restricting our freedom of speech, or of thought, in this area. The parallels with '1984' all collapse through their focus on surface impressions, and corresponding failure to actually consider what Orwell really imagined.

 

[Yew]

More generally, you, and I, and us all have the liberty to debate these points, and to disagree vehemently with them. There has been no serious suggestion of restricting our freedom of speech, or of thought, in this area. The parallels with '1984' all collapse through their focus on surface impressions, and corresponding failure to actually consider what Orwell really imagined.

I would say that the lack of right to protest is getting worryingly close to that though, alongside the OFCOM rules that forbid undermining the government line.

 

[Bantamzen]

And is where you utterly miss the focus of Orwell's writing, which was on concepts like "Thought Crime" and "Newspeak", and the requirement of the Party that all members (not proles) should love Big Brother. The propaganda techniques were a side issue. When did you last read it?

I've read it about 20 times, I even studied it for 'O' Level English Literature. And the propaganda in the book was not a side issue, it was part of how the regime imposed it's & ensured compliance. Which is why some of us see parallels with some of the messaging we are seeing today. If you don't, you don't. It doesn't mean we are not allowed to be at least a tad concerned by what seems to be some level of social engineering taking place in order to ensure compliance.

 

[MikeWM]

More generally, you, and I, and us all have the liberty to debate these points, and to disagree vehemently with them. There has been no serious suggestion of restricting our freedom of speech, or of thought, in this area.

Have you seen the censorship on Facebook or Twitter over the last 12 months? Anything questioning the prevailing narrative (especially on masks or vaccinations) has often been flagged, removed and, sooner or later, the poster is banned. I've seen people banned from Facebook for more innocuous posts than some I've made here. It is very good indeed that these forums still support free speech and dissent, but I suspect they get away with it because it is a fairly niche corner of the internet (no offense to anyone

 

[LAX54]

In the UK, no there is no need, BUT many want to go on holiday this year, maybe Spain, maybe USA, maybe New Zealand, so at least for this year, the thought of a 'passport' seems the logical thing, by next year everyone will know how good or bad the vaccines were, and the 'pandemic fear' factor will have subsided..I hope !
Most people have a passport or a driving licence, which has been said you do not have to carry, although it's easier if you do, get stopped, and you still have to trudge to a Police Stn within 7 days to show it ! (Licence not PP).

 

[RailExplorer]

I know nothing about 1984... but what I can say is that I have had several posts on Facebook and Instagram ‘fact checked’ and subsequently blocked from public viewing. If this isn’t the start of censorship, I don’t know what is. I have also first hand witnessed police beating up protestors in London who were very peaceful just seconds earlier... the words from the police i overhead were along the lines... ‘get one, any one’ and about 10 of them charged at a completely innocent woman.

We need to nip the idea of vaccine passports in the bud quickly, before it really is too late. And once it’s introduced, it’s not going away. Water bottles were banned at airport security over a decade ago - things that we give up are generally in place for a long time.

 

[ainsworth74]

but I suspect they get away with it because it is a fairly niche corner of the internet (no offense to anyone

How do you know we're not just compiling a big dossier on all the dangerous dissenters to hand over to our glorious new overlords to make sure we're in their good books?

 

[35B]

Have you seen the censorship on Facebook or Twitter over the last 12 months? Anything questioning the prevailing narrative (especially on masks or vaccinations) has often been flagged, removed and, sooner or later, the poster is banned. I've seen people banned from Facebook for more innocuous posts than some I've made here. It is very good indeed that these forums still support free speech and dissent, but I suspect they get away with it because it is a fairly niche corner of the internet (no offense to anyone

Private companies that have chosen to determine who may or may not post on their service; frequently in response to the way that their previous laissez-faire approach has allowed them to become havens for liars and fraudsters.

But not as a result of government action, but popular response.

I know nothing about 1984... but what I can say is that I have had several posts on Facebook and Instagram ‘fact checked’ and subsequently blocked from public viewing. If this isn’t the start of censorship, I don’t know what is.

Did you post facts, or opinions presented as facts? There is a difference.

 

[Darandio]

I know nothing about 1984... but what I can say is that I have had several posts on Facebook and Instagram ‘fact checked’ and subsequently blocked from public viewing. If this isn’t the start of censorship, I don’t know what is.

I think that really depends. The very post i'm quoting from you here could well be blocked from public viewing on this forum by staff, you are posting on a platform owned by someone else and don't have a say in it. Facebook and Instagram are the same in that respect.

 

[35B]

I've read it about 20 times, I even studied it for 'O' Level English Literature. And the propaganda in the book was not a side issue, it was part of how the regime imposed it's & ensured compliance. Which is why some of us see parallels with some of the messaging we are seeing today. If you don't, you don't. It doesn't mean we are not allowed to be at least a tad concerned by what seems to be some level of social engineering taking place in order to ensure compliance.

Then I'm sorry you've missed the whole element of the purpose of that propaganda, and how it supported the agenda of the Party. For your argument to work, the propaganda would have to be intended to support that kind of totalitarian government.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I know nothing about 1984... but what I can say is that I have had several posts on Facebook and Instagram ‘fact checked’ and subsequently blocked from public viewing. If this isn’t the start of censorship, I don’t know what is.

Out of curiosity what were you posting?
Those platforms have come down pretty hard on conspiracy theories over the last 2 years or so. Mainly as a result of the negative public image they have got as a result of lunatics spreading insanity on there (antivax, anti-5G, flat earth, qanon, trump's numerous lies about the election being stolen etc).
It is also important to remember that these are private companies and as such they are allowed to moderate content posted on their sites. In the exact same way posts on here are moderated and sometimes deleted. If you are suggesting that those companies shouldn't be allowed to moderate content then they are just going to become utter hellholes that nobody is going to want to use (remember, part of the content moderation they do is removing things like images of child abuse etc, which I am sure nobody here would say shouldn't happen).

I have also first hand witnessed police beating up protestors in London who were very peaceful just seconds earlier... the words from the police i overhead were along the lines... ‘get one, any one’ and about 10 of them charged at a completely innocent woman.

Not sure what your point is there. Police have always treated protestors like that. And often football fans too.
Police treating some people badly is nothing new and has nothing to do with covid or vaccine passports.

 

[Yew]

Facebook and Instagram are the same in that respect.

I do feel that this really is a problem, and we should be considering these to be 'common carriers' purely down to their ubiquity.

 

[MikeWM]

How do you know we're not just compiling a big dossier on all the dangerous dissenters to hand over to our glorious new overlords to make sure we're in their good books?

I clearly need to go back to 2010 and give myself a username less like my real name. (Unless I did already

Private companies that have chosen to determine who may or may not post on their service; frequently in response to the way that their previous laissez-faire approach has allowed them to become havens for liars and fraudsters.

But not as a result of government action, but popular response.

Of course, but freedom of speech isn't much use if the only mechanisms by which you can use it as blocked (due to lockdown) or censored (because 'private companies'). I agree that I still have freedom of speech in my own house, but as I'm the only person here, I'm not sure that's a lot of use.

I would also point out the the leader of the Opposition - a supposed human rights lawyer! - has called for people to be put in jail for spreading 'misinformation'. We're really not in a good state.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Facebook and Instagram are the same in that respect.

I do feel that this really is a problem, and we should be considering these to be 'common carriers' purely down to their ubiquity.

I mean Facebook own Instagram so of course they are the same there.
The better comparison would be say Facebook and Twitter, who do have different policies in place.

As for "common carrier" isn't that more of a US term? Given the differences in how "free speech" is treated in the US compared to the UK (many of our laws would have been deemed unconstitutional over there) I'm not sure how using a US term really helps us. Although I do ask if when people talk about free speech they actually consider the consequences. Back when people like Anjem Choudary were in the media, most people in the country were horrified by what he was saying and supported the actions to stop him spreading his hate. Why then should we get total freedom of speech without consequence but he shouldn't have?

 

[MikeWM]

Although I do ask if when people talk about free speech they actually consider the consequences. Back when people like Anjem Choudary were in the media, most people in the country were horrified by what he was saying and supporting the actions to stop him spreading his hate. Why then should we get total freedom of speech without consequence but he shouldn't have?

We're not just talking about awkward extreme cases though. We're talking about people like Carl Heneghan, professor at Oxford University, being flagged by facebook 'fact checkers' for spreading 'false information' about masks.

 

[WelshBluebird]

We're not just talking about awkward extreme cases though. We're talking about people like Carl Heneghan, professor at Oxford University, being flagged by facebook 'fact checkers' for spreading 'false information' about masks.

If you are complaining about censorship and are suggesting that platforms shouldn't censor posts, then you need to consider your view on the extreme cases, because always end up coming at some point. Indeed this is exactly why Parler was such a problem and why AWS ended up deciding it broke its terms of use - that it was being used to post explicit threats of violence and was being specifically used to plan violent acts against the US government.

Indeed the very suggestion that "fact checking" is the start of censorship is ludicrious. Facebook, other platforms and indeed this forum have been censoring posts for ages. It is called moderation and is a must have as part of running any kind of website that allows users to write or post content.

Most of the time that moderation is for obviously illegal content. Child abuse, direct threats of violence etc. But a lot of the time it isn't for just illegal content. Try having an argument in this forum or start abusing people etc. It won't be long before your posts are deleted and you are either asked to stop posting or banned outright. Forums, and other websites have always had rules you have to follow.

It has always been upto those sites on what and how they want to moderate. Again that is nothing new and to suggest it is new is just incorrect.

 

[MikeWM]

If you are complaining about censorship and are suggesting that platforms shouldn't censor posts, then you need to consider your view on the extreme cases, because always end up coming at some point.

I think, as ever, the line has to be drawn somewhere on a spectrum. Inciting violent revolution is probably not to be permitted. Saying 'hang on, here's some evidence about masks that fits the information we had for years before everyone decided they were useful based on very poor evidence indeed' ought to be permitted. There's a massive gulf there.

Indeed the very suggestion that "fact checking" is the start of censorship is ludicrious.

Is it? Who are the 'fact checkers' and how do they know their 'facts'? Why do they know more than, say, a professor at Oxford?

 

[WelshBluebird]

I think, as ever, the line has to be drawn somewhere on a spectrum. Inciting violent revolution is probably not to be permitted. Saying 'hang on, here's some evidence about masks that fits the information we had for years before everyone decided they were useful based on very poor evidence indeed' ought to be permitted. There's a massive gulf there.

Of course. But the point is that it is upto the website where that line they draw is on that spectrum.
That isn't my decision to make, nor yours. It is the websites.
Now if we don't like their decision we can decide to not use that platform (as many have done), but it is their decision to make and not ours.

I suspect most people would agree, roughly, that content that calls for illegal actions is where the line should roughly be.
But of course that would cover encouraging people to break covid restrictions in the UK for example, or worse it would cover people who are calling for protest against government in actual authoritarian states.

So I'll ask you directly - where do you think the line should be?

Is it? Who are the 'fact checkers' and how do they know their 'facts'? Why do they know more than, say, a professor at Oxford?

I said suggesting it is the start of censorship is stupid. Not that it isn't censorship.
My point is that such sites have been censoring posts for decades and indeed this forum censors posts too. So clearly fact checking isn't "the start of" censoring because censoring is something that has always been done.

 

[Freightmaster]

Most of the time that moderation is for obviously illegal content. Child abuse, direct threats of violence etc. But a lot of the time it isn't for just illegal content. Try having an argument in this forum or start abusing people etc. It won't be long before your posts are deleted and you are either asked to stop posting or banned outright. Forums, and other websites have always had rules you have to follow.

Some of the rabid pro-lockdown posts in here this week have tempted me to do just that
and to hell with the consequences!!




MARK

 

[kez19]

Simply because these restrictions on liberty are temporary, we have a route out of the restrictions and the pandemic, protecting people's health and health services are good and non-dictator reasons for imposing them in the first place.

Again 3 weeks.. now approaching over a year... Will the goalposts be moved again let’s see..

 

[MikeWM]

Of course. But the point is that it is upto the website where that line they draw is on that spectrum.
That isn't my decision to make, nor yours. It is the websites.

Indeed so, however there is a serious issue once the website becomes an effective monopoly, as Twitter and Facebook have done. At some point rights have to be protected against the whim of a monopoly provider, either in the real world or the virtual.

I suspect most people would agree, roughly, that content that calls for illegal actions is where the line should roughly be.
But of course that would cover encouraging people to break covid restrictions in the UK for example, or worse it would cover people who are calling for protest against government in actual authoritarian states.

So I'll ask you directly - where do you think the line should be?

Personally - and I do acknowledge this seems to be a fairly extreme position nowadays - I don't think there ought to be much of a line at all in this particular case. If people call for illegal actions, that is between them and law enforcement. If I print a poster calling for illegal action and put it on a lamppost, we don't blame the printer manufacturer, or indeed the council for putting up the lamppost.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Again 3 weeks.. now approaching over a year... Will the goalposts be moved again let’s see..

I mean the restrictions still are going to be temporary. At some point, it looks like this year, they will be removed.

Indeed so, however there is a serious issue once the website becomes an effective monopoly, as Twitter and Facebook have done. At some point rights have to be protected against the whim of a monopoly provider, either in the real world or the virtual.

So who should make that call in those cases then? Somebody has to right? Even in those examples, there has to be some kind of line somewhere on the spectrum Even Parler moderated some content! If you think Facebook and Twitter are too large to make that decision themselves, then the only other option is for government to decide - and that falls way more into the 1984 talk than any complaint about how Facebook and Twitter currently operate does!

Personally - and I do acknowledge this seems to be a fairly extreme position nowadays - I don't think there ought to be much of a line at all in this particular case. If people call for illegal actions, that is between them and law enforcement. If I print a poster calling for illegal action and put it on a lamppost, we don't blame the printer manufacturer, or indeed the council for putting up the lamppost.

They key difference in your example is a lamppost isn't meant to be a place where you can share content and isn't something that is owned by a private company.
A better analogy would be a shop window IMO. And in which case, if there was a notice in a shop window calling on illegal actions, I am pretty confident the shop would want to remove that notice pretty quickly and people generally wouldn't have a problem with the shop removing that notice, regardless of if that shop is a small newsagents or if it is a large Tesco.

I'm going to push again for an answer to where the line should be too. You've answered about calling for illegal actions, which fair enough, I disagree with but that is your view, but what about content itself that is illegal (images of child abuse is the easy example, but there are other more complex examples you could think of too I'd imagine - maybe content that breaks copyright law etc, or cases where the call for violence is so direct that it is classed as a direct threat itself which is usually classed as illegal - maybe direct death threats to an individual). Do you really think that Facebook etc shouldn't be able to moderate that content?

 

[packermac]

In the UK, no there is no need, BUT many want to go on holiday this year, maybe Spain, maybe USA, maybe New Zealand, so at least for this year, the thought of a 'passport' seems the logical thing, by next year everyone will know how good or bad the vaccines were, and the 'pandemic fear' factor will have subsided..I hope !
Most people have a passport or a driving licence, which has been said you do not have to carry, although it's easier if you do, get stopped, and you still have to trudge to a Police Stn within 7 days to show it ! (Licence not PP).

People also need to think if they want to go abroad about how easy (or difficult) it may become to obtain travel insurance if you can not prove a vaccination.
The industry got as serious kick in the pants over the business cover issue, so they will not that mistake again. If someone chooses not to have a vaccine, fine, but do not expect that your travel insurance is likely to pick up the costs of a hospital stay somewhere in the world if you catch Covid and are admitted, or they can "link" what you have to not having had the jab. Remember the role of a loss adjustor is to do exactly that for the insurance company.
Domestically I suspect private health insurance will have many exclusions if you choose not to be vaccinated.
Anyway what is the big deal with a "passport" you want to rent a car you have to prove you have a licence, don't want to learn to drive, fine, but do not expect to rent a car.

 

[LAX54]

People also need to think if they want to go abroad about how easy (or difficult) it may become to obtain travel insurance if you can not prove a vaccination.
The industry got as serious kick in the pants over the business cover issue, so they will not that mistake again. If someone chooses not to have a vaccine, fine, but do not expect that your travel insurance is likely to pick up the costs of a hospital stay somewhere in the world if you catch Covid and are admitted, or they can "link" what you have to not having had the jab. Remember the role of a loss adjustor is to do exactly that for the insurance company.
Domestically I suspect private health insurance will have many exclusions if you choose not to be vaccinated.
Anyway what is the big deal with a "passport" you want to rent a car you have to prove you have a licence, don't want to learn to drive, fine, but do not expect to rent a car.

Indeed, Travel Insurance already has a load of exclusions, so some more will not be beyond the realms of possibilty, if you look at everyday life, there are many things, like car rental that need I.D some airlines even want a passport for travel within the UK already anyway. If you have a mobile phone and it's on 'they' know exactly where you are #, switch on the laptop, 'they' know where you are, ANPR also knows where you are, so to have some form of notification that you have had a vaccination to go on holiday shoukd be no issue, with the same notification if you are not able to have a vaccination, I suppose some who refúse to have one, will say that they are standing up for their rights, but stuff anyone around them

 

[35B]

Is it? Who are the 'fact checkers' and how do they know their 'facts'? Why do they know more than, say, a professor at Oxford?

That’s a fair challenge, but someone being a professor at Oxford does not mean they are incapable of spreading misinformation. Yesterday’s Times had an article about a professor at Bristol whose eminence gives credit to what can only be described as pernicious lies and conspiracies.

 

[joncombe]

People also need to think if they want to go abroad about how easy (or difficult) it may become to obtain travel insurance if you can not prove a vaccination.
The industry got as serious kick in the pants over the business cover issue, so they will not that mistake again. If someone chooses not to have a vaccine, fine, but do not expect that your travel insurance is likely to pick up the costs of a hospital stay somewhere in the world if you catch Covid and are admitted, or they can "link" what you have to not having had the jab. Remember the role of a loss adjustor is to do exactly that for the insurance company.
Domestically I suspect private health insurance will have many exclusions if you choose not to be vaccinated.
Anyway what is the big deal with a "passport" you want to rent a car you have to prove you have a licence, don't want to learn to drive, fine, but do not expect to rent a car.

Personally when travelling in Europe I have rarely bothered with travel insurance and never had any problems. Perhaps I have been reckless. Perhaps I have been astonishingly lucky. I have the EU health card that covers health care costs (yes I know you might have to pay costs first and claim them back later, but I could use savings to do so). My home insurance covers possessions that are away from home if they are stolen. Airlines have to compensate under the EU261 if the flight is delayed/cancelled and you need overnight accommodation or incur other expenses. (I have only had to put this into practice once, but I was put up for the night, transport and meal costs paid for, so I had no complaints). I wouldn't take the risk of travelling to other countries, like the US with no insurance. So the question might be more of the EU health card covers Covid in which case it may not be such an issue if insurance excludes it if you are travelling in Europe.

By way of comparison, I did take out travel insurance in 2019 which covered me through to 2020. When I did try to claim on it, for a trip I couldn't make due lockdown restrictions and that the hotel refused to refund, the travel insurance company told me that according the UK Government (the competition and markets stuff) they believe they should be refunding so I must take it up with the hotel as they won't pay out where the hotel is liable to refund. I had already done so and provided all communications where they flat out refused. In any case the hotel was outside the UK, so whatever the UK Government thinks they should be doing is largely irrelevant. In addition the hotel had gone bankrupt between me booking and the date I was due to travel. It was still open, as the result of a management buy out. The hotel explained this (and provided details of the old company number that was now bankrupt and so on), explaining that the money I paid had been paid to a now bankrupt company and as a result they could not legally refund it. When I pushed back AXA then changed their tune to the fact the hotel had offered a change of dates (which is true) so the money was "recoverable" and they wouldn't pay out. They ignored the fact the hotel had offered to change the dates of the booking but had also stated that if I arrived on that date I would have to pay again. I.E. they wern't offering to change dates for free, they were effectively offering to make a second booking, for which I'd have to pay again.

Unfortunately there are other issues around potentially having to qurantine/self isolate but most don't seem to cover that now.

As to the driving license that's a very different issue. You are legally required to posses a driving license in order to be able to drive without an instructor present. So it seems perfectly logical to check that. You are not, yet, required to have a vaccine passport in order to travel. So I see now issue with asking to prove you are legally qualified to drive considering not everyone is.

 

[MikeWM]

If you think Facebook and Twitter are too large to make that decision themselves, then the only other option is for government to decide - and that falls way more into the 1984 talk than any complaint about how Facebook and Twitter currently operate does!

The Government should be there to protect our rights against monopolies who seek to abuse that monopoly power. Just because they fail to do a good job at that doesn't mean that shouldn't be part of their role in a properly functioning democracy. I'm not anti-Government, I'm anti-bad Government. Although often it is hard to tell the difference nowadays.

They key difference in your example is a lamppost isn't meant to be a place where you can share content and isn't something that is owned by a private company.
A better analogy would be a shop window IMO. And in which case, if there was a notice in a shop window calling on illegal actions, I am pretty confident the shop would want to remove that notice pretty quickly and people generally wouldn't have a problem with the shop removing that notice, regardless of if that shop is a small newsagents or if it is a large Tesco.

You're probably right that this would be the case. (This is one of many reasons why public space is valuable and should be protected, rather than turned into private space, something that is increasingly happening).

I'm going to push again for an answer to where the line should be too. You've answered about calling for illegal actions, which fair enough, I disagree with but that is your view, but what about content itself that is illegal (images of child abuse is the easy example, but there are other more complex examples you could think of too I'd imagine - maybe content that breaks copyright law etc, or cases where the call for violence is so direct that it is classed as a direct threat itself which is usually classed as illegal - maybe direct death threats to an individual). Do you really think that Facebook etc shouldn't be able to moderate that content?

I think anything clearly illegal is arguable - if the Royal Mail would refuse to deliver the message if you put it on a postcard, for example. But even then we have a difficult decision as to the fact these are global platforms and laws are very different from place to place. Only allowing content that is legal everywhere is obviously deeply problematic for many reasons. Would we be comfortable if Facebook moderated posts about gay sex, because it is still illegal in some places? Or abortion?

There isn't a simple answer. The presumption must always be against censorship unless there are very strong reasons to do so.

 

[Gadget88]

Greece and Israel will allow people in with a vaccine OR negative covid test so unvaccinated can travel.

But it questions how we get tests? How long do they allow you in after a negative result? How many tests on a 2 week holiday?

 

[Horizon22]

BBC is reporting that Greece and Austria are encouraging EU states to introduce vaccine passports. Although there's evidently not a consensus in the EU and continuing with self-isolation would somewhat ruin your holiday / make it pointless for a young couple / young family / group of friends.

Coronavirus: EU urged to adopt 'vaccine passports'

Greece and Austria want coronavirus-free tourists this summer, but other EU states have concerns.

www.bbc.co.uk

Greek Deputy Prime Minister Akis Skertsos told the BBC that a common digital certificate "is not discriminatory at all". He argued that non-vaccinated tourists could also visit Greece this summer, but the procedure for them would be slower - they would have to be tested and might have to self-isolate on arrival.