zlacker

>>southe+(OP)
When the platforms starting censoring during the pandemic and last election cycle I remember saying they better get it right 100% of the time because the moment they get it wrong their credibility is shot. Hear we are.

Censorship, beyond what’s required by law, is doomed to fail.

>>chasd0+u8
I still remember that so many people cheered when legitimate doctors and scientists were banned from Twitter or Facebook, just for questioning either the lockdown or the effectiveness or risks of the vaccines. The doctors may not be correct, but shouldn't we allow people to question science? Our government can do what it does because the people embolden them.

>>hintym+QI
The challenge is trying to determine who’s legitimately trying to question the science vs who’s a crank.

>>iamacy+aP
I'm not sure that this is a useful distinction. It starts to sound an awful lot like philosophy 101 "what is a p-zombie" horseshit... if both people are asking the same questions or using the same rhetoric, why would their internal, unknowable-without-telepathy intent make any difference whatsoever? If you do think there is an actual distinction, somehow, even then should you care? Because people who want to censor the speech will just label the skeptics as cranks anyway, and shut it down.

"Crank vs sincere skeptic" is fallacious, as it attacks the person and not the argument.

>>NoMore+sb1
> If you do think there is an actual distinction, somehow, even then should you care?

Well yes, because one is trying to get to a positive outcome while the other is trying to confuse and mislead you for ideological reasons.

>>iamacy+LN1
If they're both saying the same things, then it truly does not matter. The crank might accidentally arrive at the positive outcome, the sincere skeptic might mislead unintentionally.

You responded, you obviously think you're making a point. I hope you're one of the cranks though, because that would explain how poor your argument is.