> he's not a valuable source of information because you don't know whether what he says is true or not

How do I know what anyone says is true? Why should I trust what you're saying about Sikora?

I should be able to watch a video on youtube and decide for myself because censorship is inimical to free thought.

You should take a moment to consider that most of the examples throughout history of censorship were carried out by decidedly bad people. Truth can stand on its own!

I am definitely NOT pro-censorship, so I don't know why you're saying this to me. Please read a few comments up. The entire reason censorship is a topic on this subthread is that I brought it up as a problem.

ive never heard the name sakora before. genuine question -- just curious how/why you've come across their writing, when it seems the claim is that they are some kind of quack?

When the Libyan government was trying to get the Lockerbie bomber out of jail, they paid Sikora off to say that the bomber was going to keel over in a few weeks from cancer. He admitted that the Libyans let him know what prognosis would be most helpful when they hired him. Lo and behold that's the prognosis that he came up with (which also ended up being completely wrong)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora is mentioned in another comment.

The Wikipedia article looks very unbalanced to me, but there is definitely some smoke there too.