[_kulang]

IMO most people are completely incapable of critically approaching new information 24/7 and so are susceptible to weighing incorrect and misleading information highly if they are repeatedly exposed to it. At the risk of being a heathen, I think information and discourse in public forums needs to be moderated and curated - the other option is to do what we do today and devalue people’s opinions based on our personal perception of the quality of their information, which is subjective. Any fears about censorship and control are a reflection of the ridiculous centralisation of the internet, and breaking up or socialising large platforms is the appropriate response.

Ultimately I think the expectation that platforms ought to facilitate and tolerate discussion of topics just because they are “ideas”, “suggestions”, “opinions” and not presented as fact is toxic. If you want to do actual research do it in the correct setting (not a public forum). And fortunately, that is where actual research is happening.

It is not some overarching plan by some godly G-man, you don’t see these drugs being promoted because there is ultimately no scientific proof of their effectiveness. If Moderna had the same attitude towards science and statistics as the people who are pushing “alternative” treatments, we would have had a COVID vaccine much sooner.