Here is an interesting case where an international group has gone out of its way to stop treatment by spreading misinformation.

https://youtu.be/eD9BYCYwsUI

>> Markson is also the reason that SkyNews was temporarily banned on YouTube [0], for repeatedly delivering information that was more grounded in the imagination, than in anything with actual evidence backing it.

Let's be clear about the fact that in 0% of any cases where speech was not directly illegal was censorship the right choice.

>> There's no conspiracy here - she's actively dangerous to people's health.

So is McDonald's every time they advertise and sell any of their garbage product. And yet we recognize that it is important that people make up their own minds than do 'what is right', because it is not our place to determine what is right for them.

> Let's be clear about the fact that in 0% of any cases where speech was not directly illegal was censorship the right choice.

In a debate about scientific facts, when you stop defending the content of a position and instead fall back to saying that it is not illegal to express that position, you've lost the debate.

That's literally the opposite of the scientific method. A healthy scientific community rejects "scientific consensus" because the scientific method is about testing hypothesis including previous work (see the replication crisis).

As an example, the study proving that hydrocholoroquinine was useless for treating COVID was retracted by The Lancet. Turns out that the data was faked, and yet the paper still gets cited.

A good scientist doesn't hold any "scientific facts" as sacrosanct. Only hypothesis, theories, and evidence.

The debate wasn't about scientific fact. It was about whether a journalist was spreading misinformation and according to whom. The debate is about the Orwellian term "misinformation" and has less to do with science than with Scientism.

Does the logic not work the other way? If you start defending censorship of a position, you have lost the debate.

It does not.

It is scientific fact that countries which start censoring for “correctness” in increasingly many categories end up being Not Great places to live.

Can I express something that has been whirling in my head for some time already?

So, all you folks shrouding their polemic tripe under the mantle of Freedom and Liberty of Speech, please stop.

You claim Liberty to express whatever crosses you mind, but I want to claim my own right to “Passive” Freedom of Speech: the freedom to form my own ideas, settle into an opinion, build my own ethical compass, free from the manipulation, the doublespeak, the deceit of fake news, astroturf and pure induced mental fatigue on subjects that are important and demand careful and good faith reflection.

Get out of my mind, it’s my own rightful and exclusive property!

> So is McDonald's every time they advertise and sell any of their garbage product. And yet we recognize that it is important that people make up their own minds than do 'what is right', because it is not our place to determine what is right for them.

Pelman v. McDonald's [0] covered that in considerable detail.

Markson, has promoted information that is detrimental to health, as positive for health, and so is not afforded certain protections.

Part of the reason that the tort against McDonald's failed, is that McDonald's was not shown that they had a duty to warn the plaintiff.

However, it is established precedent, that someone in Markson's positions _does_ have a duty to warn their audience.

[0] https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8852143/Benloulo...

Aside for YouTube "tut tut" what has Markson said that disqualifies her? I ask in full faith, as I don't know who she is.

But why does YT get to tut tut anyone? The only basic reason for it is that you fundamentally agree with YT's worldview and are OK with their dominance.

I'd ask for you to turn the tables around, YT censoring PoV you agree with. But we both know that is a ridiculous question; introspection by the hegemon usually is.

> "But why does YT get to tut tut anyone?"

because it is a platform they own. I'm not arguing whether that is good or bad but if you run a site you are free to moderate it however you wish. Until YT, FB etc. are classified as public utilities or similar, you have no rights whatsoever to say what you want on someone else's platform.

Lol, I asked rhetorically. I know the legality behind it.

It's a pickle to to balance all the higher order principles involved.

I don't give a damn if she's selling me the literal oil of processed snakes and telling me it will cure my cancer. It is not the purview of the government to be my daddy.

Information you get from an advertising based channel is filtered by the advertisers who provide the money to make the thing run. Shitstorms are bad for sales.

Regardless of the supposed merits or demerits of hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, the articles you cite don't support your claim very well. The piece on hospitalization only tangentially connects those two medications to toxicity in hospital. It specifically says those drugs were taken among unnamed others and that the source of influence was unnamed online sources. The quoted doctor is very hand-wavy about connecting those drugs to the hospitalization, and it's unclear from the quote whether the primary reason the patient was admitted to hospital wasn't Covid: "The patient didn’t get severe toxicity from taking the ivermectin cocktail, “but it didn’t help their Covid either”, he said."

I would be very skeptical of any claims around Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine in The Guardian, which is a very biased news source. Especially after the recent Rolling Stone mendacity regarding claims of toxicity in Oklahoma, which was a complete fabrication nonetheless amplified on the left media.

The other article you cite disapprovingly mentions the author was claiming "lab leak" back in May 2020. That would seem a mark in favor of her reporting, no?

> The other article you cite disapprovingly mentions the author was claiming "lab leak" back in May 2020. That would seem a mark in favor of her reporting, no?

Not unless said reporting at the time actually had evidence to support the claim. A reporter has a duty to report based on actual evidence.

She has repeated misinformation, without that evidence, an argument you just used to dismiss the entirety of the Guardian, for all time, on one subject matter. Should that not equally apply to this reporter, then?

What is your evidence that she didn't have evidence? Lots of credible people were saying lab leak in 2020. I was there and following it closely. It wasn't hard to come by if you employed basic skepticism of the mainstream narrative.

I didn't dismiss the entirety of The Guardian for all time (straw-man, anyone?), I said I would be skeptical of anything they publish related to a contested narrative because they have shown repeated bias. What's wrong with that? I'm not telling you not to be skeptical of this journalist. It seems like you're really projecting your own beliefs here.

> What is your evidence that she didn't have evidence?

That is extremely easy to answer: She never presented any. Which is the entire point of everything I have said.

> I would be skeptical of anything they publish related to a contested narrative because they have shown repeated bias. What's wrong with that?

Nothing. It's the exact reason to not believe this journalist. As I have repeatedly pointed out.

>What is your evidence that she didn't have evidence?

I'm no scientist but I'm pretty sure that's not how that works.

If someone makes a claim that many credible scientists are making publicly, the burden to present your evidence on a cable news segment is lessened. Regardless, the fact is she published a book and I assume it's got citations. The commenter merely asserted their claim as true and I wondered if they had good reasons to believe it.