[Kalium]

It's also worth considering that the public might decide that all this mucking around with injecting people with virii sounds like trying to kill us all. So vaccine use gets banned, and lots of people die from preventable diseases.

Or maybe a town refuses to flouridate their water after a series of propaganda campaigns convinces people there that it's toxic and will ruin the purity of their water system.

I understand why you cast it as you do. History is chock full of preventable abuses! Yet, it's worth considering that such things can backfire as well. Public debate is not a panacea, and policy is often rushed and poorly formed to satisfy atavistic fears. A public debate can easily urge politicians to robustly protect the public from imagined threats while enabling real ones.

[onceKnowable]

Only if the whole population succumbs to ignorance. Not saying that doesn’t happen, especially in light of stuff like net neutrality and the NSA et al’s data gathering.

But on the whole, the general public will drown out cranks who shout about imagines threats like fluoride or vaccines. The science on both is clear.

Likewise, I’m optimistic that the negative realities of net neutrality stifling startups and the mass data-gathering will become so apparent to future generations of lawmakers & voters that they’ll be reversed in due course.

[Kalium]

It doesn't take the whole population succumbing to ignorance. It just takes a bunch of voters who are uncertain and scared. This happened in Portland, Oregon a few years back when voters were terrified into opposing floridated drinking water.

The science may be clear, but it may be unwise to be too certain that future generations will agree with what you and I believe in today.