And that's the difference. You cannot conflate "government censorshop" and "private censorship" into one big bucket of "censorship."
There are at least three major differences:
1) Government censorship can apply anywhere, including in completely private settings. When the government wants to censor, let's say, bomb-making instructions, it can stop you from sharing that information even within the privacy of your own home. But Facebook cannot censor someone from expressing their views anywhere outside of Facebook. It only has the power to control the content on Facebook.
2) Government censorship involves preventing people from certain expressions. Private censorship involves the private company not being forced to carry certain expressions. Facebook can't tell you not to express a certain viewpoint; it can only refuse to use its servers to transmit that viewpoint to others.
3) Government censorship can be enforced with the criminal justice system - sharing bomb-making instructions can get you sent to prison. Facebook's power is limited to banning you from Facebook.
For at least those reasons, we have very strong concerns about government censorship and the Constitution places strict limits on it. Concerns about private censorship are much more limited, and the Constitution says nothing about them. On the contrary, "freedom of expression" has been interpreted in exactly the opposite way - by preventing the government from forcing private entities to carry certain expressions of others that they don't want to express.
Of course it did. And Trump was welcome to reclaim that reach by (a) finding other channels, including other social networks, to carry his message and/or (b) founding his own communication channels. He has in fact tried both, rather earnestly since the insurrection, and no one has stood in his way. His inability to regain the volume that he had is due to the grotesque unpopularity of his message (in addition to the fact that he's no longer POTUS), not because of "censorship."
Again, you are painting with far too broad a brush. Would you trust a "scientist" to teach you how to mix chemicals together? What if their expertise is in the science of biology? Or psychology? Or computer science?
We're talking about the science of immunology, vaccines, and epidemiology. Medical school covers these topics only briefly and superficially. Doctors in epidemiology and public health certainly study the science of vaccines and epidemiology in extensive depth. Doctors in heart surgery don't. Nor do doctors in radiology, otolaryngology, or podiatry. Their brief encounter with immunology in medical school may be 20 or 30 years out of date. And yet, lots of these "I'm a doctor" types have relied on the letters at the end of their name to bolster their personal opinions with expertise that they do not have.
Scientific disagreement sparks growth. That's why medical journals conduct an extensive peer-review process before publishing thousands of articles per year.
Facebook and Twitter are not forums for "responsible scientific disagreement." Nothing about either medium is conducive to extended discussion. And the people spreading antivaxx theories on social media aren't interested in disagreement or discussion; they are there to push their viewpoint... The End.
"The fight against misinformation" did not include peer-reviewed journals, where actual science is conducted and discussed. "The fight against misinformation" was limited to social media, where science is not being done. That's the difference.S1arburst wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 10:36 pm(3) Covid is a new disease, particularly when it was first striking the US in 2020. There *can’t* be a settled method of treatment when we’re learning new things about the disease all the time. The fight against misinformation started right at the beginning of lockdowns, and made no logical sense.
"False?" Pharmaceuticals, by definition, are unsafe when used irresponsibly. That's why they are regulated and available only by prescription.S1arburst wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 10:36 pmOne example of disinformation that was fought against was using hydroxychloroquine.
... the NIH did ban an emergency authorization to use it for Covid after some faulty studies seemed to show that it caused harm. Even before that though, the media was sounding an alarm about how it was an unsafe drug. False. It’s been used for prophylaxis of malaria for decades.
Many drugs are "safe" in some patients, at some doses, when taken under certain conditions. That certainly doesn't make them "safe" for the general public to use with zero knowledge or controlled conditions. Drinking too much water can kill you, ffs.
Oh? Because here's what the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control has to say about it:
The dangers of using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)
- High quality research data show the use of HCQ for treating COVID-19 can be dangerous and has no medical benefit. In fact, the FDA has revoked emergency use authorization for HCQ in COVID-19 patients based on these dangers and because it does not help people recover faster.
- HCQ should not be taken for COVID-19 infection because it can cause serious heart rhythm abnormalities, severe liver inflammation, and kidney failure.
- Taking HCQ on your own outside the hospital is dangerous.
I'm not an epidemiologist. Neither are you. Neither one of us has any qualification to make these kinds of statements.S1arburst wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 10:36 pmAll or most those countries that locked down must have had epidemiologists advising them. I haven’t had as much medical education as a doctor, only 4 years for a B.S. in nursing, but as soon as I read about how contagious Covid was, I knew that lockdowns weren’t going to work to stop the disease.
I find it interesting that you can so lightly cast aside research by a recognized, respected public health organization with a 70-year track record in this field - but you grant so much credibility to the casual medical opinions on Facebook of Joe-Bob Smith, Doctor of Dermatology, that you want to force Facebook to carry them.
There is an apparent skew in your method of assigning credibility, and it's based on whether or not you agree with the content. That is not how science works. And that very skew is the heart of the misinformation problem we have today.