I reckon the burden of proof lies with those making the accusations! How can the claims be disputed when their evidence isn't even put forward in the first place?
… except there is evidence from those making the accusation? You can see, for example, the Wikipedia article for RFK Jr., and it's well-sourced from there that he's a proponent of "vaccines cause autism".
Yet this article attempts to frame it as if that were incorrect, while carefully avoiding framing that directly and clearly; and we've seen this tactic time and again from people who want to push misinformation. The OP is replete with the red flags of disingenuous debate.
Take the other example the article gives: Musk has retweeted conspiracy theory and pushed misinformation on multiple occasions. Cf. the tweets about Sen. Pelosi's husband. The Texas mall shooter. Vaccination views. How many examples have to grab the media's attention when they happen for it to not need constant sourcing in every debate?
I'd entertain a debate on whether pressuring companies to pull ads on sleazy platforms for the purpose of killing the platform is a good thing or not … but the OP isn't it.
Yet this article attempts to frame it as if that were incorrect, while carefully avoiding framing that directly and clearly; and we've seen this tactic time and again from people who want to push misinformation. The OP is replete with the red flags of disingenuous debate.
Take the other example the article gives: Musk has retweeted conspiracy theory and pushed misinformation on multiple occasions. Cf. the tweets about Sen. Pelosi's husband. The Texas mall shooter. Vaccination views. How many examples have to grab the media's attention when they happen for it to not need constant sourcing in every debate?
I'd entertain a debate on whether pressuring companies to pull ads on sleazy platforms for the purpose of killing the platform is a good thing or not … but the OP isn't it.