> Deplatforming ... helps stop disinfomration

And also confirms the scepticism of those who have grown diffident of dominant narratives.

Deplatforming can also stop information.

--

The issue is an old epistemological issue: it is the "demarcation problem". We have been there. It's not trivial.

In this case though, vaccines save lives and aren't a different narrative, so it's fine to delete disinformation that is getting people killed.

No: the words of Halprin were not that "information will be censored that denies that «vaccines save lives»". And if such position existed, I want to hear about it: it may come from a fool, it may come from someone reliable, I cannot know in advance.

And "saving lives" must be put in context: it is a generic objective, not a justification for censorship.

I'm very skeptical that deplatforming effectively curbs misinformation. If anything it magnifies it via the Streisand effect. It kicks off headlines, "This is the _______ that big tech doesn't want you to hear!" Focusing on individuals like Spencer and Yiannopoulos is missing the forest for a couple trees. Look at how widespread these people's ideas, as well as anti-vaccine sentiment, had become despite (and perhaps, because of) attempts to crack down on it.

A large percentage of the population believe an invisible being in the sky created the universe in 7 days, why is everyone so surprised that a percentage of the population believe Bill Gates is implanting microchips in vaccines?