4 ms·
> But we should not block people based on political views or skepticism about science or anything else that is controversial. The censorship regime of big socia
by kaibee 2y ago
> But we should not block people based on political views or skepticism about science or anything else that is controversial. The censorship regime of big social media platforms should be viewed as an editorial choice, under law and in principle.
> Lastly - large social media platforms are utility communication services and public squares. They need to be regulated and treated like a government agency, restricting their ability to ban users and content. After all, so much of today’s speech is on these platforms. Not being able to share your ideas there is similar to not having free speech rights at all.
This is all well and good, but maybe the place to rehash a debate about whether vaccines work is not in fact, the center town square. I would say that a person who has no idea about any of the underlying science and evidence, but is spreading doubt about it anyway (especially while benefiting financially), is not in fact, 'sharing their ideas', because they don't meet the minimum standard to actually have an opinion on the topic.
- pests 2y agoEveryone is equal. Just because they don't "meet the minimum standard" doesn't mean their view or opinion is irrelevant. There are people sprouting crazy ideas in actual public town squares all the time, and they have done so forever. You don't have to go there and you don't have to listen.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago> they don't meet the minimum standard to actually have an opinion on the topic Who should judge that and why? I think that’s what makes free speech a basic right in functional democracies - there is no pre judging it. Challenging authority and science is important if we want to seek truth. In the case of vaccines, for example, people were getting censored for discussing side effects. Myocarditis is now officially acknowledged as a (rare) side effect of the MRNA based COVID vaccines. But not long ago it was labeled as a “conspiracy theory” and you would get banned on Twitter or Reddit for mentioning it.
- kaibee 2y ago> Myocarditis is now officially acknowledged as a (rare) side effect of the MRNA based COVID vaccines. Sure. But the MRNA vaccines were the first ones to be available and the Myocarditis risk from getting COVID-19 while unvaccinated is still multiple times higher than the risk from the MRNA vaccine. So, all that telling people about the risk of myocarditis does is dissuade some portion of people from getting the MRNA vaccine... which leads to more cases of myocarditis/deaths.