[mdanger007]

I can't take "censorship" arguments seriously on 2 accounts. Firstly, information is not egalitarian: Information is better supported and more relevant than others. No one saying a baby screaming in a movie theater is being censored.

Secondly, social media has its own rules for speech almost diametrically opposed to government and academic. I regularly come across crazy claims from anti-vaxers like "the virus 2 microns. too small for masks to capture." am i being censored when my assertion that they are wrong by a factor of 10 because it's saliva that carries viruses and that they should give my voice equal time in their echo chamber?

[jlawson]

>"the virus 2 microns. too small for masks to capture."

This is literally true; it's just incomplete given the relationship with saliva as you noted.

The solution here is to reply and spread more true knowledge.

You can cite super-narrow cases constructed to make censorship seem like a great idea. Within the limited bounds of those examples, the argument may seem to hold water. But in reality, there is no way to limit the power of censorship to the places where it's right to use. It will always be abused, and today it is being abused massively to suppress reasonable ideas from millions of people because they don't flatter the values of the people who happen to hold power.