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
Too bad that you don't like what some other people say or write. That's what public discourse is, most things said will be things you don't agree with. And since you're neither God nor the Supreme Ruler, you don't have the right to silence anybody else.

>>carlos+kD1
Why are you so angry? Where did I say that flat earthers should be silenced?

You desperately need to remove yourself from communities of perpetual victimhood.

All I said was that they are not legitimately questioning the science, because they are not.

The one thing that is extremely interesting is that even the people who loudly shout for free speech do not themselves believe in it, as they constantly try to cancel all sorts of free speech and expression essentially constantly.

Very very few people believe in absolute free speech.

>>wredue+fu2
I am not angry, and not a victim. Maybe you're making up an image in your mind?

The discourse as I interpreted it, was that there was a need to censor those who are expressing opinions that are not "legitimate".

>>carlos+XR2
There “might” be a need to *selectively* censor people expressing illegitimate “science”. Especially when they knowingly do it knowingly.

What Facebook does though, is horrific. They are not just letting illegitimate science have a platform, they are actively and intentionally propping that shit up because it creates victimhood communities.