[scohesc]

That's really depressing that you think that way. That way of thinking is pretty dangerous. I know it's a "slippery slope", but thinking that certain people shouldn't express their opinions on things in a public place goes against everything the internet gave us so many years ago.

[mwfunk]

Everyone has a right to their own opinion, no one has a right to their own facts though. I get what you're saying but there are consequences to certain types of misinformation (ex.: anti-vaxxers). It's a complicated issue.

[LeifCarrotson]

I think we're in a state of transition that will take a few decades to resolve itself.

In the past, it was difficult to get an idea published. Money and power are definitely not sufficient to show that someone's ideas should be listened to (in some cases, the converse is true), but they're at least weakly correlated to competence. Also, when the barrier to entry was higher, less was produced, so there was a lot more opportunity for coversight.

This lead to printed words and popular speech having an air of authority and truthfulness. I expect that this will be swiftly eroded, and replaced with more caution, as society adjusts.

[scohesc]

If you take away the right for anti-vaxxers (or climate change deniers in the OP's case) to talk about things on a public platform where they're actively ridiculed, they're going to go underground and create their own communities under the radar.

Say someone goes to that community to try and convince them otherwise and says "hang on, vaccines don't cause autism, here's some research articles", they'll get banned and their post removed, and everyone in the separate community is none the wiser and nobody who uses that community will ever have the chance to be convinced otherwise.

So if you really wanted to stamp out the anti-vaxxers, I guess you'd have to have some kind of monitoring to make sure they don't post anything anywhere about anti-vaxx views. That would need to be done by someone or something powerful, say... Facebook or the government? I don't trust Facebook as their ulterior motive is selling your data for sweet sweet ad money, and I don't trust the government as many governments have shown in the past many times they can't be trusted to regulate speech of citizens (not that I would EVER want to regular speech)

So - why not just let them speak on large public platforms and have them get laughed at?

[mwfunk]

I never said anything about people making laws about anything. And they do get laughed at, but then they claim that they're somehow being censored by all the negative responses they get. And none of it makes a difference. For a lot of people, universal condemnation on Facebook or Reddit or whatever is just further proof that they're on to something.

All I'm saying is that there's disinformation, and then there's harmful disinformation, and on top of that there's a recent trend amongst certain podcast listeners in a certain demographic to insist that allowing people to spread harmful disinformation as far and wide as they want to will magically reveal how fake and harmful it is to everyone. I don't know what the answers are, I just know the binary answers are wrong:

(0) The government should pass laws prohibiting free speech about stuff the government has determined is "wrong".

vs.

(1) If only everybody could just say whatever they want anywhere and anytime they want without repercussions, social pressures from Internet forums will make them realize how wrong they are! Because if there's one thing we've learned about Internet forums over the past 30 years, it's that they bring everyone together and magically help filter out truth from falsehood? Or something.

I don't have any answers, I just know that neither extreme is helpful, and I'm extremely not sympathetic to the likes of anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists.

[seandougall]

> they're going to go underground and create their own communities under the radar

I dunno, they're already doing that anyway. And OP clearly has no interest in actually sticking around and debating this point, just in trolling us, so it's not like flagging their post shuts down conversation in any meaningful way.

[NeedMoreTea]

Great, let them go to their own communities. Time was fringe beliefs stayed mainly in the shadows. If you wanted to believe in a flat earth, or deny climate change there was probably some guy running an amateur newsletter you could subscribe to, maybe small scale meetings to attend. Those subscribing to a more mainstream view need never know or care.

Why should every reasonable conversation about climate, vaccination, and others give space to allow constant sealioning? It spoils every discussion and ruins it for those trying to discuss and learn in good faith - whilst entertainment for the troll lobbing the one sentence hand grenades.

> "If you take away the right for anti-vaxxers to talk about things on a public platform" vs "someone goes to that community ... they'll get banned and their post removed"

So you're actually advocating for the paradox of tolerance? They can moderate the discussion in their under the radar community to stay on topic, but the world in general should not and should just take the consequences and pollution?

[AnimalMuppet]

cakeface claimed to be stating fact, not opinion. cakeface supplied no evidence, and instead attempted to reverse the burden of proof. And the claimed fact is rather farcical on its face; it certainly needs some evidence in order to be believed.

No, I don't think much would be lost from the discussion if that comment were removed. We'd lose some noise, but very little signal.

I agree that there is a slippery slope. I don't know where to draw the line. But HN gives us a way to downvote and flag comments like this one for a reason - they add negative value, and the discussion is better off without them.