3 ms·
Ha-ha, no. Rather the opposite - after all, we need some kind of system to prevent anti-vax disinformation from undermining our public health response. EDIT: Y
by heartbeats 7y ago
Ha-ha, no. Rather the opposite - after all, we need some kind of system to prevent anti-vax disinformation from undermining our public health response.
EDIT: Yes, this is satire.
- filoleg 7y agoNot sure whether your response was tongue-in-cheek, but just in case it wasn't. When you get a loaded gun like this that gets passed around, you don't get to control what the next holder of that gun does with it. Just because it is you or your buddy who would want to use it for a good cause (preventing anti-vax disinformation), doesn't mean that the next holder of the gun won't use it in a way you won't like. And even then, that's assuming you do not believe that anti-vaxers should be allowed to publicly post their disinformation. I absolutely disagree with anti-vaxing, but I do believe in their right to post their info, just like i believe in their right to be publicly beaten into submission with overwhelming amounts of scientifically accurate information.
- seibelj 7y agoIf someone made it illegal to post anti-vax statements, it would just embolden people to do it more. That's just how human psychology works. It's also the most ridiculous, knee-jerk reactionary power we could possibly give the government.
- jbay808 7y agoBy this reasoning, China censoring doctors who warned about the flu was merely very effective reverse-psychology in order to get people to take it seriously? I don't support internet censorship, but I do support consistency of reasoning.
- sergiotapia 7y agoI sincerely hope your comment is satire.