Misinformation dilemma.

[Brian37]

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-mis...cicC5fhvJc

"Is it reasonable to outright ban information that is both harmful and wrong? Does freedom and democracy really require that massive platforms are given to utter nonsense?"

Institutions are still struggling with the challenge of dealing with deadly healthcare information. This challenge was not caused by social media, but certainly was exacerbated by it. And it also did not suddenly become relevant during the COVID pandemic, but was brought into sharper relief. What we are experiencing now is actually part of a much longer trend, and is essentially a conflict between freedom on the one hand and quality control for the purpose of public good on the other. A solution at either extreme seems unlikely, and perhaps there is no ideal solution.

It is the classic dilemma. A similar argument to the "how far can you tolerate intolerance" argument.

My question to you guys is:

Are we OK for governments and social media platforms to censor topics and posts and even written/printed articles which go against the mainstream scientific evidence?
If not, why not.

But then, how do authorities police against gatherings like this in Melbourne?
How can scientifically/medically uneducated police decide who is right or wrong?





I don't think censorship is the answer. How can you police against opinion?
I think from the moment we enter a free democratic world, the small print should read: "Caveat emptor" and leave it at that.

Yep, conspiracy crap. "I don't want to get a vaccine or wear a mask because I don't want my government experimenting on me like the Nazis.

They also confuse the word "isolated" when scientist use it, with the ability to spread. The sequences have been isolated, as in "identified". What this moron doesn't understand is that reducing "spread" depends on everyone doing their part for public safety.