Edit: for context, this comment was originally in response to a larger comment that I see has been pared down. > it's unclear why medical misinfo should get a

Edit: for context, this comment was originally in response to a larger comment that I see has been pared down. > it's unclear why medical misinfo should get a free pass in the US system Because it's an arbitrary category. What about cars, or computers, art, or politics? Imagine having fact checks and censorship for what constitutes good art. Handling misinformation is not an artificial problem, it's a systemic problem because it always comes back to human judgment, and humans are not and can never be omniscient. Jack's supposed motivation for allowing or disallowing certain things doesn't matter in the face of what they actually implement in reality: banning both true information and false information, in the name of fighting "misinformation." It is true that private citizens and companies can do whatever they want. And it would be really great if what they truly wanted was to fight "misinformation." But what is apparent is that everyone on every side of heated situations on the internet nearly always wants to remove information that they specifically disagree with - and if that information may actually be true, but there is an authority that can be appealed to who will vouch for the un-truthiness of it anyway - then that authority's opinion will be taken for granted and hoisted upon others. It takes a lot of guts to say "I think you're wrong but I'm going to allow you to speak." Cutting people's voice out is cowardly, and dangerous at scale. When you attempt to cut off the bottom of the bell curve on the false->true spectrum, you never do just that. You cut off the top, too. When you simply remove false claims rather than let people engage in a way that they're corrected, they don't learn. It is more likely to stoke a resentment leading to planting down harder than anything else. And when you cut out the top of the bell curve, you don't always just remove truths that counter mistruths. A small percent of the time you remove original thinking. And this is what the original commenter was talking about.