I find it so interesting that we emphasize the importance of free speech for all with support from the First Amendment ... except for blank, blank, blank because of this, this, or this. It's as though there are exceptions to everything depending on the circumstances or situations. For example, there's freedom of speech for all on social media, until someone goes against the grain with a different opinion on a topic and the majority with the original opinion attacks the different opinionated person for not agreeing with them. I see why this can make it so difficult to consistently uphold the ethics of media; it's individual, so one part may not be applicable to another. The major challenge is media -- especially social media -- is unpredictable all the time, it's no wonder this makes it so hard to sort out genuine garbage content from a-okay content.

Just like the article I selected for Discussion Board #9 the word "appeared" is an assumption, just like something seeming or lookinglike viral nonsense, that doesn't make it so. I strongly dislike words that assume without evidence to make it fact. This means that there's the potential that sites that weren't, in fact, spreading viral nonsense were also deprecated, which means this deprecation spread to sites that didn't deserve it. The deprecation of sites due to supposed spreading of viral nonsense is a great idea in concept; it's unbiased in that these sites were deprecated regardless of political leanings, so questionable content is filtered fairly, neutrally. I just wish there were a way to exclude the assuming aspect because sites that aren't posting viral nonsense may be censored unfairly.

"Products can't be bought in stores." Another red flag. Why not? Buyers of this product should've further questioned how safe and legitimate BOO was because they aren't a built up brand, like Native deodorant for example, where they've built up trust, earning credibility for how effective and safe their deodorant is. It's the equivalent of buying a product from an unknown individual in an unfamiliar town on Ebay. If you wouldn't do that, why would you buy BOO or anything else from an individual you don't know? You may as well buy the $19.95, plus shipping and handling, fat burner you saw on the shopping channel at midnight that can only take your debit card as form of payment. It would be just as credible, safe, and beneficial.

Red flag. When the posters of such massive claims as "cur[ing] everything from autism to cancer to Alzheimer's disease" and even Covid-19 are 'unreachable' the sources of these claims -- posters -- should be questioned for their credibility. If this claimed "miracle dirt" does cure these conditions, why would those posting about this cure not want to share it with the world? These claims also lack evidence, research, and authentic testimonies, thus their credibility is nonexistent in terms of truth.