[PrimeMcFly]

No, it's far less defensible, because people have the internet to look up and verify things as needed.

This kind of censorship is just nannying, which I'm generally against.

Then again, given how inept people are at thinking for themselves, maybe a nanny state is what's best.

[flangola7]

> No, it's far less defensible, because people have the internet to look up and verify things as needed.

Actual it is far more defensible, as I already clarified earlier. Propaganda remains effective regardless if there is the ability to verify it or not - and that is assuming everything can and will be checked by every person, which isn't realistic.

> This kind of censorship is just nannying, which I'm generally against.

It's not nannying at all. It's basic national self defense. Pen is mightier than the sword and all that. Brainworms are an insidious contagion.

[PrimeMcFly]

> Actual it is far more defensible, as I already clarified earlier.

You didn't clarify, you just gave your opinion. One I disagree with.

> Propaganda remains effective regardless if there is the ability to verify it or not

So you claim. Even so, the correct approach is for the government to fight propaganda with corrective disclosures. Censorship is not the answer.

> It's not nannying at all. It's basic national self defense.

It is certainly the former, even if it is the latter also, something I'm skeptical of. The two are not mutually exclusive.

> Brainworms are an insidious contagion.

You fight them with truth, not censorship.

[flangola7]

You're confusing opinion with facts. If I say the sky is blue and you say it is yellow, one of us is sharing an opinion, and it isn't me.

Moderation and removal is the correct action, so are you flatly incorrect. I'm not going to argue with the stubborn child that wants to put their fingers in the outlet. This isn't up for discussion.

[PrimeMcFly]

> You're confusing opinion with facts. If I say the sky is blue and you say it is yellow, one of us is sharing an opinion, and it isn't me.

The irony and lack of self-awareness in this statement is honestly astounding.

You hoenstly think your opinion is objetive fact, lol.

> Moderation and removal is the correct action, so are you flatly incorrect.

Because you say so? lol.

> I'm not going to argue with the stubborn child that wants to put their fingers in the outlet. This isn't up for discussion.

There is no discussion to be had with someone that asserts their opinion as fact but can't corroborate it as such. Such a person is indeed a stubborn child, and them calling others a stubborn child can be dismissed like any other nonsense a child may say in an emotional state.