zlacker

I don't think on any time scale that the marketplace of ideas is sufficient to get rid of quacks. There are plenty of popular health-related practices which have had plenty of time to demonstrate their clinical efficacy, but which have failed to do so. Acupuncture, reiki, homeopathy etc all have people that believe in them despite the absence of evidence.

But on _short_ timescales, during an emergency when people are emotional, and in a context where media can benefit from amplifying a message whether or not it's true ... we've seen enough people believe some harmful stuff, and sometimes require extra medical attention because of it.

I'm not saying censorship alone is an answer -- but the marketplace of ideas is not functioning as you describe.

>>abeppu+(OP)
>we've seen enough people believe some harmful stuff, and sometimes require extra medical attention because of it.

>I'm not saying censorship alone is an answer -- but the marketplace of ideas is not functioning as you describe.

Honestly, neither is curated news. At the time of this poll, 41% of people who identified as Democrats believe that if someone caught covid, their chance of hospitalization was 50% or higher. The actual number is 1-5%. Massive amounts of Republicans and Independents also believed this as well. You assume a fair, pure and incorruptible curator, which doesn't exist. Censorship isn't the answer.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/18/briefing/atlanta-shooting...