> They never do away with anything besides the most harmful, hate filled rhetoric.

who decides what speech is "hate filled"? this is free speech 101. what is the point of a publicly accessible social platform if people can't express themselves freely?

Free speech applies to the government, not businesses. Which is good because if it didn't there wouldn't be spam filters. Don't like their rules? Host it yourself.

Exactly, the term "free speech" has no relevance in the private sector.

Is there any reason to believe the dangers of the presumed misinformation being censored are actually significant? Is it killing more people than the Tide pod challenge for example? The article mentions taking vitamin C, and turmeric, but that just seems harmless to me. If it was just that, it’s clearly not worth banning the masks or origin discussion.

Yes telling people the virus isn't dangerous and to resume your life is how Italy got overrun. This is the misinfo being spread.

Yeah I agree that is very dangerous, although that is exactly what governments and most TV channels were saying at the time.

They are saying it now. Today. Attempting to change the subject to what was said 3 months ago isn't a great strategy.

You mentioned "how Italy got overrun", so I was talking about the timeframe that you brought up. I'm not trying to change the subject.

The WHO are themselves spreading misinformation for political reasons.

They are making a calculation that a global run on masks would hurt efforts to contain spread due to shortages for medical professionals confronting the virus everyday, as opposed to general public confrontation which is more sporadic.

Should they just come out and say that? Probably. Would it be effective? No people are irrational in crisis and their words wouldn't prevent the above scenario.

They made a calculated choice with their language which is misleading, but necessarily so. You can disagree with it, but it's far from "spreading misinformation for political reasons".

FWIW I agree re masks but withholding information from Taiwan to appease the CCP is inexcusable. Luckily the Taiwanese are far more competent than their counterparts in this farce.

Your second statement is a far ways away from your first one.

I disagree. Omitting critical information is a (more advanced) form of disinformation.

You don't release disinformation to help fight the spread of a virus, you release it to hurt government's ability to do so.

The term isn't interchangeable with lying, it's purpose-driven.

> Unfortunately platforms that reach billions must prioritize the danger of misinformation spreading

No, they don't. See, this is the core problem, that premise: that's the job of governments. And in the US, the law says the government doesn't get to do that.

Arguing that entities who are arguably more powerful than the government should be doing it is literally arguing for the dictionary definition of fascism.

Actually in the US it's explicitly not the job of government, hence the bill of rights.

Individuals, and collections thereof, however, are free to censor whomever they want. This misguided idea that your protection from government censorship affects your contractual agreement with me needs to stop.

> Actually in the US it's explicitly not the job of government, hence the bill of rights.

You need to read my comment again.

In the US, it is NOBODY'S JOB.

> This misguided idea that your protection from government censorship affects your contractual agreement with me needs to stop.

Repeat after me: "I am not Google. I am not Google. I am not Google. I don't affect the lives of billions of people. I don't affect the lives of billions of people."

I did. Are you suggesting that legally, Google is unable to do this, or that ethically there is some principle that says that large collections of people should have fewer rights than individuals? And therefore that the government should restrict the speech rights of those groups?