zlacker

> that promoting and publicising it makes it accessible to a wider audience that does have an effect on real world consequences.

So you'd be okay with banning misinformation about COVID and the COVID vaccine? Misinformation and agitprop had very real consequences in the real world.

>>cmh89+(OP)
The test of the truth of a live location is trivial. The test of truth of COVID information is not. In the case are spreading something that is provably untrue eg. 1 + 1 = 3, even in that case, you should just rebut and explain why it is untrue.

Nice strawman!

It's a question of safety of provably true information in this case.

>>cmh89+(OP)
Yeah, misinformation and agitprop have very real consequences, but Twitter still shouldn't ban, e.g., Anthony Fauci (if he had an account) or CNN, no matter how much misinformation or agitprop they spread. That stuff should be addressed with replies, community notes, and other commentary.

>>hndami+S1
>The test of the truth of a live location is trivial. The test of truth of COVID information is not.

The assertion that posting a 'live location' create dangerous real world consequences is completely absurd. We know plenty about the dead humans COVID misinformation left in its wake.

You are okay with censorship here because you agree with it. Full stop.

>It's a question of safety of provably true information in this case.

Okay, prove the lack of safety.

>>cmh89+J2
> It's a question of safety of provably true information in this case.

The information is provably true by going to the location and verifying that the person is there.