2 ms·

A LOT of stuff got censored as "misinformation", that later got proved to be true What that means is that people were sharing unproven things. Some of the thin

A LOT of stuff got censored as "misinformation", that later got proved to be true What that means is that people were sharing unproven things. Some of the things were later proven, and some weren't. Censoring everything until it's actually proven science is not a bad strategy when people are willing to inject themselves with bleach because they're so desperate for a cure.

ajsnigrutin 3y ago
But gravity is not proven either, and a bunch of physics is just theories still. We don't censor those. Why should we censor lab leak theories? It was a valid theory even then and still is. I mean... to go to extreme, why should we censor reptilian 5g zuckerberg-is-a-robot theories at all, why censorship? People were spraying their houses with vinegar before too, and we didn't censor that, even if it wasn't proven either. On the other hand, we had real world data that vaccinated people "don't get sick", and we didn't censor that either: https://web.archive.org/web/20210402002315/https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/transcript-rachel-maddow-show-3-29-21-n1262442 https://web.archive.org/web/20210402002315/https://www.msnbc... > And we have -- we can kind of almost see the end. We`re vaccinating so very fast, our data from the CDC today suggests, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don`t get sick, and that it`s not just in the clinical trials but it`s also in real world data.
mitthrowaway2 3y ago
> What that means is that people were sharing unproven things. Some of the things were later proven, and some weren't. For example, early in the pandemic when the surgeon general of the USA and the top doctor of Canada both advised against wearing masks, would you classify that as the authorities "sharing unproven things"? Perhaps they should have censored themselves, instead of shutting out the voices who pointed out that the worldwide evidence was overwhelmingly in favour of masks being effective?

ajsnigrutin 3y ago

But gravity is not proven either, and a bunch of physics is just theories still. We don't censor those. Why should we censor lab leak theories? It was a valid theory even then and still is. I mean... to go to extreme, why should we censor reptilian 5g zuckerberg-is-a-robot theories at all, why censorship? People were spraying their houses with vinegar before too, and we didn't censor that, even if it wasn't proven either. On the other hand, we had real world data that vaccinated people "don't get sick", and we didn't censor that either: https://web.archive.org/web/20210402002315/https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/transcript-rachel-maddow-show-3-29-21-n1262442 https://web.archive.org/web/20210402002315/https://www.msnbc... > And we have -- we can kind of almost see the end. We`re vaccinating so very fast, our data from the CDC today suggests, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don`t get sick, and that it`s not just in the clinical trials but it`s also in real world data.

mitthrowaway2 3y ago

> What that means is that people were sharing unproven things. Some of the things were later proven, and some weren't. For example, early in the pandemic when the surgeon general of the USA and the top doctor of Canada both advised against wearing masks, would you classify that as the authorities "sharing unproven things"? Perhaps they should have censored themselves, instead of shutting out the voices who pointed out that the worldwide evidence was overwhelmingly in favour of masks being effective?