[Supermancho]

Promoting medical misinformation or even health misinformation should be critically judged. Alternative health companies are rubbing their hands together.

The next Drain-o chug challenge "accident" is inevitable, at this rate.

[lazyeye]

That sounds great in theory. In practice, "misinformation" ends up being defined as anything the govt finds inconvenient. Or it is selectively applied so that when misinformation comes from all sides of the political spectrum, only people the govt doesnt like (in the more general sense) get kicked off platforms.

[cubefox]

What is considered "misinformation" depends on whatever the censoring authority in question (e.g. Facebook or YouTube or some news website) _believes_ to be misinformation.

For example, in 2020, the WHO(!) Twitter account literally tweeted that masks don't work. That same statement would have been considered medical misinformation by a different authority.

Another example: the theory that Covid leaked from a lab in Wuhan which was known to do gain of function experiments on coronaviruses was painted as a wacky conspiracy theory by most of the mainstream media, despite the fact that many respectable sources (e.g. the CIA) later concluded that it has a significant amount of plausibility versus the alternative Wuhan wet market hypothesis which required that the virus somehow arrived there from a bat cave more than a thousand kilometres away.