I think some people truly believe they are 100% correct and anyone who disagrees should be silenced. It is narcissistic thinking that defeats honest debate, or honest communication.
This may be true, but it's the wrong straw man to attack in this debate. The real argument for censorship is to eliminate flooding the media with deliberate misinformation in favor of some actor who is doing it on purpose to influence the real world.
I believe if we had had a system in place to censor unscientific information regarding climate change, we would not be in as deep shit as we are now. It's a very strong argument for moderating what can and cannot be said publicly, as the negative consequences will be felt dearly by many.
Obviously there are problems with censorship, but I just want to point out that nothing about this is as clear cut as you would like to believe.
science sometimes can get it wrong too. only through the clash of opinions can we work out the real truth.
i absolutely agree that the spread of some messages should be limited, but outright censorship risks removing the wrong messages, and gets in the way of a critical discussion.
I believe if we had had a system in place to censor unscientific information regarding climate change, we would not be in as deep shit as we are now. It's a very strong argument for moderating what can and cannot be said publicly, as the negative consequences will be felt dearly by many.
Obviously there are problems with censorship, but I just want to point out that nothing about this is as clear cut as you would like to believe.