2 ms·
> This is just apologism for blatant and inexcusable censorship. No it's not. It's saying that this stuff has a lot of nuance and you aren't going to have a ru
by whateveracct 5y ago
> This is just apologism for blatant and inexcusable censorship.
No it's not. It's saying that this stuff has a lot of nuance and you aren't going to have a rule to classify it.
Sorry, that's just how the world and its laws and policies have worked for centuries. You aren't making a point by saying "it's impossible to 100% differentiate an expert being wrong from misinformation."
- tekknik 5y ago> Sorry, that's just how the world and its laws and policies have worked for centuries. And that's why we created the first amendment, because we found out how bad of an idea is for gov's to censor. How well do you think this is going to go over with the moderates and the right? The only reason you're supporting this atm is because it supports your side's group think. Parent poster is right, in normal discussion you'll have disagreements. Only one side is calling it misinformation.