3 ms·

Everything starts out as un-proven. If you use that measure to remove content you can justify any censorship.

• blacksmith_tb 6y ago
  I think the principle is a little different, it's more a question of at what point do you reign in potentially inflammatory arguments. It's not all disproven arguments: for example, there hasn't been a big push to silence people who insist the Earth is flat, as the potential for harm stemming from that kind of nonsense is limited.
  • inglor_cz 6y ago
    "potentially inflammatory" So, banning Salman Rushdie and any cartoon of Muhammad?
    • blacksmith_tb 6y ago
      Well, they are both banned in, say, Iran or Saudi Arabia... but I see your side there, for example, if they were banned in France, that would have likely saved lives, but it would also have meant a long slide down the slippery slope. For my flat-earth example, it would require the backers of the discredited argument to be taking to the streets armed, which luckily they at least haven't shown much inclination to do (and presumably why no one has really called for them to removed from public platforms).