It is, however, a lie when you demonize and censor those who did so much as mildly disagree about any of it. "You are wrong according to what we know now" can be factual. "You are wrong and deserve to be silenced" is a damnable lie.
Exactly. They censored a Stanford doctor on Twitter just because he had a different opinion, which is incredibly concerning. It's no longer (and never was, in my opinion) about filtering misinformation - it's about controlling the narrative.
You have a strange definition of censorship — excluding somebody from the trending list. You are also speculating about the reason why. He made factually incorrect statements about the vaccine, in addition to stating his poorly reasoned opinions. https://mobile.twitter.com/19joho/status/1463540124407451659
Despite your perceived censorship, we all know the Christian fundamentalist Indian-American you're talking about.
Shadowbanning is a type of censorship. Who defines what is factually incorrect? The lab leak theory was considered "debunked" until recently. Who has the monopoly over what is considered fact and what is considered fiction? I would rather have a platform where people can be wrong rather than one in which a select group of individuals decide what is "true" and what is "false".
Likewise, I'm not sure why the ethnicity of the filtered person matters to you?
His followers still saw his tweets. This wasn't shadow banning.
> Who defines what is factually incorrect?
I posted an example. Are you going to argue that it is factually correct? If you're going to change the subject to the lab leak, you better post an example of somebody who Twitter "censored" for it.
> I would rather have a platform where people can be wrong rather than one in which a select group of individuals decide what is "true" and what is "false".
And I would rather have a platform that doesn't increase deaths by amplifying known misinformation, which is something that can easily be gamed by your enemies. This is different from people being wrong about the earth being flat or being wrong about evolution by natural selection, which your hero could post wrongly about and still get promoted. Your reductionist idea of "freedom" causes you to make ridiculous policy choices. It's like somebody saying, "I would rather allow people to buy and sell whatever they want to whomever they want instead of having a select group decide what I can and can't buy and sell in what quantities to what people (including fertilizer and oxycodone)." There is a wide chasm between the extremes you're thinking about where reasonable people discuss actually workable policies.
> Likewise, I'm not sure why the ethnicity of the filtered person matters to you?
I gave it to identify him. The fact that he is Indian-American makes his Christian fundamentalism a larger criticism of his intelligence. He wasn't born into those beliefs. He arrived at those beliefs by way of poor reasoning.
