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.
> 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.