I know I’m in the minority, but I think this is a bad thing. Maybe it will have a benefit of preventing some people from finding misinformation, but overall it’s a dangerous trend that makes people at large less able to think for theirselves, as well as more ok with censorship.
I do not see it that way, it is much more dangerous to spread false and conspiracy news on serious issues, because it not only puts the lives of those who believe this at risk, but also that of others, as is the case with COVID.
Likewise, we suffer a large part of the population from the consequences of fake-news interested in politics, social and economic affairs.
It is not that some stupid believe anything, but the consequences it can have on the rest of the population.
It’s not this. Of course, freedom of expression must prevail and everyone believes what they want.
But everyone’s freedom has limits at the point when it conflicts with that of others.
It doesn’t bother me that someone believes that the world is 6000 years old and started with Adam and Eve, but when they manage to implement this belief in teaching as a valid theory.
The main thing in a society is to eliminate ignorance, not to encourage it, because without knowledge there is no freedom.
Expressing support for freedom of expression is normally a meaningless thing to do. Most people would agree that there’s nothing wrong about saying that abstract art is overrated, but most people would also agree that shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater (how creative of me) shouldn’t be allowed. The question isn’t whether free speech should be allowed, but where to draw the line. At what points does the harm of one’s speech outweigh the benefits of having a free exchange of ideas?
The question one should ask oneself in this scenario now is “What harm do the antivax movement’s ideas do?”. The decision of not vaccinating against covid-19 can mean the deaths of many people who could otherwise have lived, including the deaths of people who have nothing to do with it (caused by the potential overcrowding of hospitals and appearance of dangerous covid strains we don’t have a vaccine for yet). Is freedom of speech really more valuable than the lives of people?
One should also note that there’s a difference between the spread of dangerous opinions (subjective claims) and the spread of false and dangerous factual information (objective claims). The banning of the later is a lot more justified than the former, because bearing false witness does not contribute to a healthy discourse, on which democracy is built, but rather endangers it.
but overall it’s a dangerous trend that makes people at large less able to think for theirselves, as well as more ok with censorship.
The sloppy slope argument, which boils down to “If saying this is illegal, imagine what will happen in a few years! Restricting our speech will allow the restriction of even more speech, opening the way to the establishment of a totalitarian regime!”, does not hold up with reality. Would you say that most of Europe has become a reincarnation of Nazi Germany or is on its way towards it, just because denying the Holocaust and the expression of some other ideas is illegal?
but overall it’s a dangerous trend that makes people at large less able to think for theirselves
How does censoring misinformation contribute to people being less able to think for themselves in your opinion? The whole schtick of most anti-vaxx content is throwing pseudo-scientific jargon or misleading partial information at you, so you can have your personal opinion validated in a way that SEEMS smart. None of it holds up to scrutiny and it’s just a way of enabling people’s worst impulses instead of actually fostering critical thinking.
I agree that education, setting the record straight and argumentatively dismantling false information is preferable and more likely to foster structural thinking than just deleting it. But that’s a loosing battle because spouting misinformation is by its nature way easier than dismantling it. Education is better than deletion, but deletion might still be better than not doing anything.
The problem is who gets to decide whats misinformation. In this case its a private company that is completely unaccountable. And that makes it very easy for them to delete a channel they dont like, claiming that its because of covid misinformation.
I know I’m in the minority, but I think this is a bad thing. Maybe it will have a benefit of preventing some people from finding misinformation, but overall it’s a dangerous trend that makes people at large less able to think for theirselves, as well as more ok with censorship.
I do not see it that way, it is much more dangerous to spread false and conspiracy news on serious issues, because it not only puts the lives of those who believe this at risk, but also that of others, as is the case with COVID. Likewise, we suffer a large part of the population from the consequences of fake-news interested in politics, social and economic affairs. It is not that some stupid believe anything, but the consequences it can have on the rest of the population.
I would support a democracy of idiots over a benevolent king. I support free speech of idiots over benevolent censors.
It’s not this. Of course, freedom of expression must prevail and everyone believes what they want. But everyone’s freedom has limits at the point when it conflicts with that of others. It doesn’t bother me that someone believes that the world is 6000 years old and started with Adam and Eve, but when they manage to implement this belief in teaching as a valid theory. The main thing in a society is to eliminate ignorance, not to encourage it, because without knowledge there is no freedom.
Expressing support for freedom of expression is normally a meaningless thing to do. Most people would agree that there’s nothing wrong about saying that abstract art is overrated, but most people would also agree that shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater (how creative of me) shouldn’t be allowed. The question isn’t whether free speech should be allowed, but where to draw the line. At what points does the harm of one’s speech outweigh the benefits of having a free exchange of ideas?
The question one should ask oneself in this scenario now is “What harm do the antivax movement’s ideas do?”. The decision of not vaccinating against covid-19 can mean the deaths of many people who could otherwise have lived, including the deaths of people who have nothing to do with it (caused by the potential overcrowding of hospitals and appearance of dangerous covid strains we don’t have a vaccine for yet). Is freedom of speech really more valuable than the lives of people?
One should also note that there’s a difference between the spread of dangerous opinions (subjective claims) and the spread of false and dangerous factual information (objective claims). The banning of the later is a lot more justified than the former, because bearing false witness does not contribute to a healthy discourse, on which democracy is built, but rather endangers it.
The sloppy slope argument, which boils down to “If saying this is illegal, imagine what will happen in a few years! Restricting our speech will allow the restriction of even more speech, opening the way to the establishment of a totalitarian regime!”, does not hold up with reality. Would you say that most of Europe has become a reincarnation of Nazi Germany or is on its way towards it, just because denying the Holocaust and the expression of some other ideas is illegal?
How does censoring misinformation contribute to people being less able to think for themselves in your opinion? The whole schtick of most anti-vaxx content is throwing pseudo-scientific jargon or misleading partial information at you, so you can have your personal opinion validated in a way that SEEMS smart. None of it holds up to scrutiny and it’s just a way of enabling people’s worst impulses instead of actually fostering critical thinking.
I agree that education, setting the record straight and argumentatively dismantling false information is preferable and more likely to foster structural thinking than just deleting it. But that’s a loosing battle because spouting misinformation is by its nature way easier than dismantling it. Education is better than deletion, but deletion might still be better than not doing anything.
The problem is who gets to decide whats misinformation. In this case its a private company that is completely unaccountable. And that makes it very easy for them to delete a channel they dont like, claiming that its because of covid misinformation.