[hinata08]

The internet : sees thoughts challenging facts

Someone : “Sucks to see how many people take everything they see online for face value,” one Proven employee wrote. “Sounds like a bunch of liberals lol.”

The company : Proven also had its lawyers file “multiple” DMCA takedown notices against the McNally video, claiming that its use of Proven’s promo video was copyright infringement.

When did facts and enlightenment started to be for "liberals lol" ?

Freedom of speech based on facts should be universal.

[yojo]

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."[0]

0: https://youtu.be/IJ-a2KeyCAY?si=cIcawm3U5-55nI2D&t=252

[hinata08]

I just saw grokpedia results, which include a gay-free description of gay novels (Banana Fish) and forged or curated accounts of war on Iraq, Thatcher and Duterte.

So yeah, reality is liberal nowadays

[skopje]

They're all a tough guys act. It's the type. Many American men love playing soldiers. What is Liquid Death? It's water LOL. See?

[abustamam]

I like liquid death because their water is delicious and not high in sugar. I usually drink a sparkling water with dinner and I definitely prefer liquid death over la croix. They are technically different products though.

That their marketing is so edgy is just fun. I don't take it seriously, and it doesn't seem like they do either.

But Proven is definitely full of toxic masculinity internet tough guys.

[viridian]

FWIW in my experience is less the monster energy / black rifle coffee audience, it's actually the red bull / white claw audience.

It still feels wrong to me, but that's how it is.

[zahlman]

> When did facts and enlightenment started to be for "liberals lol" ?

It didn't. That's one employee of the company, who has a clear bias in the matter, being ridiculous. It has nothing to do with liberal ideology, nor critique of liberal ideology, nor whatever sort of person that employee thinks should be considered a "liberal", nor their ideology. It's only the employee who even suggests that, and probably not even seriously.

[mothballed]

>Freedom of speech based on facts should be universal.

To be fair that's not what we have in USA. For instance, a nurse who never even signed a private privacy agreement with anyone (unusual, but could happen) could violate HIPAA if they factually tell a patient's spouse the patient is being treated for AIDS and they ought to watch out.

[alwa]

Yes, they could and most definitely would be. The case you describe is one of the reasons it’s that way.

For what exactly would this fly-by-night nurse be telling me to “watch out,” in relation to my partner who’s living with and being treated for HIV?

One hopes this nurse, being medically trained and apparently working with vulnerable populations, understands the efficacy of the modern HIV therapies the patient is receiving. That, when managed, HIV is not transmissible by conventional marital means [0]; and that, until recently at least [also 0], concerted public health efforts have meant that most anyone who seeks medical attention ends up on those modern therapies.

That said, I hope said nurse would catch me in a charitable mood rather than a litigious one.

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/global-hiv-tb/php/our-approach/undetecta...

[nradov]

How could that happen exactly? In what circumstances could a nurse end up working for (or even volunteering for) a HIPAA covered entity without signing a privacy agreement?