[marta_morena_29]

I wonder when people will finally understand that outside of mathematics, there is no "truth" and "falsehood". There is only statements that have sufficient evidence to be considered a fact, or statements that lack evidence or even statements that go against evidence while lacking supporting evidence (Lets call these statements "Trumpian statements").

If we establish, that a statement is "really true" only if a celestial being, aware of all the facts, would consider this statement true, then pretty much all statements in the world have an unknown for their truth value. The error also can't be established. What people thought "really true" a hundred years ago, we now laugh about. Same will happen to many other things.

Censorship of "falsehoods" is a very dangerous concept. It prevents innovation. Einstein was essentially a heretic. His theories were bold and completely absurd to most people back then. Should we have censored them?

However, for many many statements, a lack of evidence has no impact on the truthfulness. Just because I can't prove something, doesn't make it false. Just because there is a mountain of counter-evidence, doesn't make a statement false, it just makes it less likely to be "really true". However, there could be a surprising piece of evidence, that trumps (pun intended) all existing counter-evidence.

If you want to censor, then you essentially force society into coherence. That is good in the short-term, as it reduces conflict, but very very bad in the long-term, as it suppresses non-standard opinions (i.e. innovation and free expression).

A much better approach than censorship is to create a channel "What Joe Rogan Got Wrong" and list all his supposedly falsehoods and explain the mountain of evidence against it. That of course takes effort. But yeah, the quick solution is rarely the best.

[lalaland1125]

It's interesting that you mention Einstein and physics. Science is basically the most censored field out there. Every single published paper goes through rigorous peer-review and will not be published if other scientists think it's flawed. I think science would be much worse off if they threw that peer review away and journals like Nature simply published whatever article showed up on their door.

Edit: Due to some confusion in the comments. I just want to clarify some of the terminology here. When I say that science is "censored" I mean it is "censored" in the same way that Spotify is "censoring" Joe Rogan. Nobody is stopping any scientist from posting their papers anywhere they want online and there is nobody stopping Joe Rogan from taking his show and broadcasting it elsewhere. They are only being "censored" in the sense that the mainstream publishers have high truth quality standards and some shows (and scientific papers) don't meet those standards and thus publishers will refuse to publish the low quality material.

[disown]

> Science is basically the most censored field out there.

Science isn't censored. It's the opposite. It is open and it is tested. You are allowed to claim/hypothesize whatever you want. And you and others are allowed to test it.

There was a time when science was censored. Such as when people started to hypothesize that the earth revolved around the sun. Or when germany started censoring "jewish science".

You are misattributing "testing one's claims" with censoring one's claims. Science doesn't censor.

[marta_morena_29]

But that is something very different. Nobody censors "new ideas". The censorship in science is focused on journals. I.e. if you want your idea to be published through a standard, accepted channel, it needs to be extensively peer-reviewed. And this is important, for obvious reasons.

However, nothing prevents you from publishing your idea on the web, and people have done that and succeeded. There were some brilliant ideas (missing the link) that just got thrown out in the wild. But if the idea is truly brilliant, some other scientist will notice and make sure it gets reviewed anyhow.

The "censorship" (I wouldn't call it that) in science doesnt happen at the publishing stage. When you have a great idea, it is bound to succeed, because nobody can afford to ignore you. The problem is getting there. How do you get the idea? Funding... Science funding is utterly broken. I.e. people research the wrong things for the wrong reasons all the time. This needs to be fixed, however it has nothing to do with censorship. This is just bias.

Spotify is not a scientific journal. It's purpose is not to decide the truthfulness of its content. It should not publish content that breaks a law. If no law is broken, Spotify has neither an obligation, nor should they intervene/censor the content.