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
That is not the challenge, cranks have freedom of speech. There is no such thing as "legitimately" in this question.

>>carlos+3b1
There is. People saying “the sun is the main driver of climate change “are not legitimately questioning the science”.

Flat earthers are not “legitimately questioning the science”

This is called JAQing off. “Just Asking Questions”. They’re not. They’re muddying waters, often knowingly.

>>wredue+Yz1
Flat Earthers are legitimately questioning the science because no one has (or should have) the authority to arbitrate what is too stupid to question. Everything has tradeoffs and free speech has a lot of somewhat obvious downsides.