Seeking clarifications and justifications

[Intrinion]

I will reverse the warning for this.

 

[Geneco]

I will reverse the warning for this. View attachment 30850

Thank you for your time and patience to re-evaluate this.

 

[Intrinion]

As for the horse paste warning, it was not issued by me. I had only deleted your post.

 

[Geneco]

As for the horse paste remark, it was not issued by me.

Oh well that's shocking...

In any case, we have to apologize to you in advance for bearing the brunt of our criticism and feedback, as we were operating under the assumption that it was issued by you.

Thanks and you have certainly done more than enough after this revelation.

No hard feelings after this revelation.

In any case, hope the moderator in question will understand our POV and clarify.

 

[Intrinion]

Oh well that's shocking...

In any case, we have to apologize to you in advance for bearing the brunt of our criticism and feedback, as we were operating under the assumption that it was issued by you.

Thanks and you have certainly done more than enough after this revelation.

No hard feelings after this revelation.

In any case, hope the moderator in question will understand our POV and clarify.

No worries. Hope this clarifies.

 

[cranthir]

@Geneco

Since you quote my posts a couple time, I want to point you to my last post in that thread you quoted

for matter of life and death, we may also err on side of caution and close such threads.

Users are entitled to their opinions and analysis, they are not entitled to their facts.
In case where facts cannot be verified, i tend to err on the side of caution and not close threads, we may put an unverified tag, but if thread starter positioned his post as an opinion, then that is what he is entitled to.

Of course, these does not mean we allow misinfo threads, malicious threads like "I think there is a bomb threat" disguised as opinion that may cause public panic, we will also err on side of caution and close such threads.

 

[reddevil0728]

Is there a concern over Geneco's usage of "we" through the account's posts?

Seems to suggest it is representing an organisation, not sure if it is within the TOS.

Also, "Geneco" is the name of an electricity retailer in Singapore. With such coincidence and the use of "we", is that an issue worth looking into?

 

[Geneco]

@Geneco

Since you quote my posts a couple time, I want to point you to my last post in that thread you quoted

for matter of life and death, we may also err on side of caution and close such threads.

Hi @cranthir

Thank you for taking time to look into this.

Before we go further, just want to clarify if you were the one who issued the infraction.

 

[cranthir]

Hi @cranthir

Thank you for taking time to look into this.

Before we go further, just want to clarify if you were the one who issued the infraction.

no not me

 

[Geneco]

for matter of life and death, we may also err on side of caution and close such threads.

Yes, if we were indeed giving specific medical advice like "xyz works for covid" and hence ask users to try it, rather than seeking proper medical advice, then no doubt there is no dispute and we strongly encourage such posts to be infracted.

Users are entitled to their opinions and analysis, they are not entitled to their facts.
In case where facts cannot be verified, i tend to err on the side of caution and not close threads, we may put an unverified tag, but if thread starter positioned his post as an opinion, then that is what he is entitled to.

If users are indeed entitled to their "opinions" as you have quoted here, then we see no reason why we should be infracted for our "opinion" in the first place.

We shared our "opinion" that ivm might/might not be responsible for allowing us to avoid covid despite engaging in high risk activities.

Generally, we have no issues with your team deleting such post if you think it can mislead users, regardless of the perceived outcomes.

But is it infraction-able per se for a member to just express his/her opinion on the perceived efficacy of a certain drug?

Such sharing are very common during this period when cases are high...

E.g people saying lian hua qing wen works / doesn't work, even a list of medicine to take can be found sometimes.

Are we going to err on the side of caution on the above too?

 

[needsomeadvice]

Think the mods have been quite in line with MOH and HSA on this.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sin...at-prevent-covid-19-misleading-claims-2601871

 

[Geneco]

Wow just wow, this kind of censorship sounds like something out from a 1984 novel. Something on the scale that russia, north korea and china is capable of...

Glad that nature has gifted us with lots of smart people who can discern the wider systemic issues...

Think the mods have been quite in line with MOH on this topic.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sin...at-prevent-covid-19-misleading-claims-2601871

​

"RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS​

He must not disseminate or forward any information or documents about the safety, efficacy and effectiveness of approved COVID-19 vaccines in Singapore, if the information is "contrary to generally accepted evidence" that supports the use of such vaccines.

He must also not spread information about the purported safety and efficacy of any drug, therapeutic product or vaccine in treating and preventing COVID-19, including ivermectin, if these agents are not approved by HSA or are required to be administered solely in a clinical trial.

Dr Khoo must not share information about the sale and supply of ivermectin.

The doctor must also not use websites, social media platforms or closed messaging systems to share any views on these matters.

He must also seek to remove any posts or messages, “to the extent that is reasonably practicable”, on websites, social media, closed messaging platforms, about such matters.

In addition, Dr Khoo must also not recommend, prescribe, supply or administer ivermectin or any other drug not approved by HSA to anyone for use to prevent or treat COVID-19.

He must also not give false or misleading information about having prescribed ivermectin or any other drug that is not approved by HSA for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19.

The doctor must also not provide information to suggest that he is able to sell or supply such drugs outside the context of an approved clinical trial.

"Dr Khoo must not recommend, prescribe, supply or administer ivermectin to any patient without the prior approval of a fully registered medical practitioner with a valid practising certificate, whose approval, medical council registration number and signature must be recorded electronically or in writing," said the SMC.

He must keep a log of all the patients he recommends, prescribes, supplies or administers ivermectin to. This log must include the details of the approving medical practitioner, and must be submitted to the SMC within five days.

Dr Khoo is also required to inform any organisation or person employing him for medical work that his registration is subject to the conditions, the council said.

 

[reddevil0728]

Wow just wow, this kind of censorship sounds like something out from a 1984 novel. Something on the scale that russia, north korea and china is capable of...

Glad that nature has gifted us with lots of smart people who can discern the wider systemic issues...

​

"RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS​

He must not disseminate or forward any information or documents about the safety, efficacy and effectiveness of approved COVID-19 vaccines in Singapore, if the information is "contrary to generally accepted evidence" that supports the use of such vaccines.

He must also not spread information about the purported safety and efficacy of any drug, therapeutic product or vaccine in treating and preventing COVID-19, including ivermectin, if these agents are not approved by HSA or are required to be administered solely in a clinical trial.

Dr Khoo must not share information about the sale and supply of ivermectin.

The doctor must also not use websites, social media platforms or closed messaging systems to share any views on these matters.

He must also seek to remove any posts or messages, “to the extent that is reasonably practicable”, on websites, social media, closed messaging platforms, about such matters.

In addition, Dr Khoo must also not recommend, prescribe, supply or administer ivermectin or any other drug not approved by HSA to anyone for use to prevent or treat COVID-19.

He must also not give false or misleading information about having prescribed ivermectin or any other drug that is not approved by HSA for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19.

The doctor must also not provide information to suggest that he is able to sell or supply such drugs outside the context of an approved clinical trial.

"Dr Khoo must not recommend, prescribe, supply or administer ivermectin to any patient without the prior approval of a fully registered medical practitioner with a valid practising certificate, whose approval, medical council registration number and signature must be recorded electronically or in writing," said the SMC.

He must keep a log of all the patients he recommends, prescribes, supplies or administers ivermectin to. This log must include the details of the approving medical practitioner, and must be submitted to the SMC within five days.

Dr Khoo is also required to inform any organisation or person employing him for medical work that his registration is subject to the conditions, the council said.

Ok so what’s the point? entities like hwz has to operate under the confines of the law

 

[Geneco]

Ok so what’s the point? entities like hwz has to operate under the confines of the law

Well everyone's actions tip the grand scale of tyranny or freedom.

Too much on either side is not ideal.

But the scale should never be rigged in any sides favor...

A reasonable legal system does not censor reasonable opinions which are not plain falsehoods...

 

[reddevil0728]

Well everyone's actions tip the grand scale of tyranny or freedom.

Too much on either side is not ideal.

But the scale should never be rigged in any sides favor...

A reasonable legal system does not censor reasonable opinions which are not plain falsehoods...

So can HWZ, a private entity enforce their own set of rules?

 

[Geneco]

So can HWZ, a private entity enforce their own set of rules?

This is going off tangent, not going to follow up on issues which are not relevant..

This thread is about whether reasonable opinions should be censured or infracted...

 

[reddevil0728]

This is going tangent, not going to follow up on issues which are not relevant..

This thread is about whether reasonable opinions should be censured or infracted...

i dun see enforcing own rules is going off tangent because that's exactly what you have an issue about

 

[Geneco]

i dun see enforcing own rules is going off tangent because that's exactly what you have an issue about

Well you should go through each post in this thread and synthesize an executive summary of each issue that was brought up...

That would be very helpful....

 

[IndianChief]

Well you should go through each post in this thread and synthesize an executive summary of each issue that was brought up...

That would be very helpful....

No point even engaging with him. Don't even know why you try. He will just lead you in a merry go round with no end in sight. He only has one purpose which is to impress mods by backing them up and making sure you (or anyone else creating a thread in feedback forum) don't get your way

 

[Geneco]

No point even engaging with him. Don't even know why you try. He will just lead you in a merry go round with no end in sight. He only has one purpose which is to impress mods by backing them up and making sure you (or anyone else creating a thread in feedback forum) don't get your way

Well we certainly hope he can impress everyone here by being helpful...

An executive summary will come in handy...

The mods are over taxed and strained of late...

Some help is definitely appreciated....