[SamPatt]

This feels misleading.

Social media platforms were removing content discussing lab leak theories, and there's enough evidence of government officials colluding with those platforms generally to suspect they could have played a role in that.

That's apart from the scientific community itself, which is what this hearing is ostensibly about.

[simonh]

The problem was that a lot of the 'evidence' of a lab leak and genetic engineering of the virus was contrived, exaggerated misinformation. So if you want to exclude contrived exaggerated deliberate misinformation from your platform, what are you going to do?

Personally I have been from the start saying that a lab leak was possible, on the basis that lab leaks have happened before, and should be investigated. That makes me a lab leak theory supporter as a possibility from day one. I've never got silenced, banned, insulted or de-platformed for saying so. I have no common cause or sympathy for people knowingly spreading lies and contrived 'evidence' to push the lab leak hypothesis though.

[SamPatt]

It's an unrealistic expectation that no evidence posted online is contrived or exaggerated. Even a cursory examination of "legitimate" channels such as academic work, or communication from governments, will find plenty such examples.