>I've never seen a bad or immoral or harmful idea

Sure but who decides what ideas are bad or immoral or harmful? Everyone pretends like this is some simple problem to solve but come on. It's incredibly complex and it seems that both sides of this argument that want to anoint an Arbiter of Truth are only okay with it insofar as it's their Arbiter.

>Sure but who decides what ideas are bad or immoral or harmful?

Simple, whoever owns the platform.

Just imagine traveling back in time and trying to convince your grandmother of this.

"We just can't know if the polio vaccine will work, because it's just fundamentally impossible to decide what is true and false."

"What about the trials the scientists did?"

"No, grandma, believing the scientists would be picking a side."

The only reason that anybody thinks deciding the truth is impossible is because we're currently living with the greatest amount of free speech in history. It's a slippery slope but in the exact opposite direction than everybody thinks.

This is a really stupid example because they didn't actually do the kind of double-blind peer-reviewed trials for the polio vaccine that you seem to think is the only way for "science" to declare something as acceptable - they just did it. And actually, in the first round of "trials" for the Polio vaccine a bunch of children died. But, thankfully, we didn't have some annoying corporate apparatus running things at the time, so we eventually got over that initial hiccup and BAM ... no more Polio.