[smaryjerry]

Sure but how many schools teach, get your best information from Facebook? Any? I look at Facebook more like the phone company facilitating communications, and I wouldn’t blame the phone company for what people say or want the phone company to cut people off.

[mikkergp]

> It is arrogant to think that 1. people are too stupid to debate amongst themselves to let the good information rise to the top and 2. that the person in charge has all available information

I can get behind number 2 but I can’t really get behind number 1. There are too many human motivations other than rhetorical efficiency for this to be true. It’s a nice libertarian idea, but I think the reality is if you look at the spread of ideas, “best” attempting some kind of objective determination rarely rises to the top. This is like basing economic theory on the rational actor. You can come up with some good theories, but they’ll break down when you apply them to reality. I think the reality is unfortunately much more murky. People don’t have to be taught that Facebook is a good place for information for them to be influenced by it. I think most conservative thought I’d based more on personal stories and an appeal to your community then science or rational thought which makes Facebook a more fertile ground.

[smaryjerry]

I think assuming people are too dumb to make a decent choice would also be a problem you could blame democracy for and be an argument for a dictatorship. That’s kind of what misinformation management by the company who is controlling your method of communication feels like, a dictatorship of ideas. It gives Black Mirror vibes controlling truth, and sort of comes down to the basic argument of what is better you, safety or freedom as well. Slippery slopes are an actual thing and just having any of that power available opens up the door for abuse especially like in the case of this article where there is perceived pressure from the government, the only entity allowed to use violence, on stopping the spread of anything but their idea of the truth. Just imagine if these particular vaccines actually weee dangerous, even to a specific people with specific conditions - trials aren’t the same as mass adoption. The levels of information blocking in place could have hindered research as you literally would get banned for mentioning you had a bad reaction. In my opinions ideas should stand on their own, and if good enough eventually people will come around.