Given lab leak theory was initially censored as "misinformation", and anyone claiming the vaccines did not stop the spread (now proven accurate) were banned from many platforms, I'm not sure this brand of censorship is targeting the correct "insane people".
After all, these policies of 'shoot first, ask questions later' are precisely the opposite of science-based approaches.
We can't ever forget that these policies led to the censorship of topics that later turned out to credible, or true. The atrocious record of this censorship is the stifling of the scientific process.
These policies that you champion not only stifle free speech, they censor credible theories if they happen to not be politically correct.
That's just from one perspective, there's also the massive issue of creating what amount to blasphemy laws. Criticism of certain religions has regularly been punished as "hate speech" in the UK and Europe.
>claiming the vaccines did not stop the spread (now proven accurate)
The opposite was evidentially proven, multiple times. Vaccines stopped the virus transmitting from infected individuals in many if not most interactions:
If you're saying it doesn't 100% eliminate the chance of infection or transmission, no one who knew anything about vaccines ever claimed that.
(As for the lab leak hypothesis, there's still only circumstantial evidence, not enough to conclusively priviledge it above the zoonotic hypothesis. There was even less evidence at the time, and anyone discussing it was only serving to distract from the conversation to blame China, a country that was already doing more than any other country to stop the spread (arguably too much)).
Are you saying that you're comfortable banning conversation of important, unresolved issues? I'm not sure I see your point, and
> There was even less evidence at the time, and anyone discussing it was only serving to distract from the conversation to blame China
is both a very strong assumption about the motivations of those you disagree with, and a very political opinion of yours that many might not agree with.
If anything, this comment of yours seems to contain an example of the exact thing being criticized: limiting certain domains of speech (including certain positions within some domain) for the reason that you don't think it's right, or dangerous, or it doesn't agree with your politics or int'l relations, or w/e.
Nothing in my comment limits speech. You'll note I'm not saying they should have been banned for talking about anything. I'm noting that presenting those topics as if the people who got banned for discussing them were merely presenting facts is incorrect, and a poor defense.
That said, I do believe those who promote actively false or intentionally misleading information (misinformation), especially that which has significant negative impact on the public, do deserve moderator actions, up to and including being banned in some cases.
(Also, discussion of "important, unresolved issues" is rarely resolved by letting random twitter conspiracy theorists say whatever they want.)
>That said, I do believe those who promote actively false or intentionally misleading information (misinformation), especially that which has significant negative impact on the public, do deserve moderator actions, up to and including being banned in some cases.
Like when Fauci and the CDC told people not to wear masks because they weren't effective (because they failed to stockpile enough masks in case of a health emergency)? Or when the US government insisted that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11? When you give the power to any central authority to unilaterally silence anyone they declare is engaged in "false or intentionally misleading information" you aren't eliminating false and intentionally misleading information, you are merely giving the central power a monopoly on disseminating false and misleading information that nobody else is allowed to challenge.
> If you're saying it doesn't 100% eliminate the chance of infection or transmission, no one who knew anything about vaccines ever claimed that.
Except it was: saying you can transmit the virus after having been vaccinated was indeed categorized as misinformation and suppressed for at least several months until breakthrough infections become common enough that the government couldn't keep a lid on it. The official line was that if you were vaccinated you could not spread the virus and diverging from this line would be met with censorship.
After all, these policies of 'shoot first, ask questions later' are precisely the opposite of science-based approaches.
We can't ever forget that these policies led to the censorship of topics that later turned out to credible, or true. The atrocious record of this censorship is the stifling of the scientific process.
These policies that you champion not only stifle free speech, they censor credible theories if they happen to not be politically correct.
That's just from one perspective, there's also the massive issue of creating what amount to blasphemy laws. Criticism of certain religions has regularly been punished as "hate speech" in the UK and Europe.