> Should flat-earthers be given equal authority too?

That's not the relevant question to this discussion (and also basically a strawman).

The question is, should being a "flat earther" be banned from online monopolies as misinformation? As objectively stupid as it might be (even though I don't think anyone actually believes it) I think it would be extreme overreach to start trying to shut down youtube videos positing the earth is flat

> start trying to shut down youtube videos

Not getting ad revenue is not having your video shut down. Set up patreon if you want income making "more CO2 is good, actually" videos (you probably should regardless of content).

>>>Set up patreon if you want income making "more CO2 is good, actually" videos (you probably should regardless of content).

People have been deplatformed from Patreon for unpopular opinions too.

https://heavy.com/news/2018/12/patreon-sargon-of-akkad-jorda...

>" Set up patreon if you want income making "more CO2 is good, actually" videos..."

What about when Patreon demonetizes the content?

> I think it would be extreme overreach to start trying to shut down youtube videos positing the earth is flat

I tend to agree. Demonetizing them and barring them from promoting any other products should be enough to discourage those crooks who don't believe themselves in flat Earth, but make videos, books and merchandise about it to cash on gullible users.

> That's not the relevant question to this discussion (and also basically a strawman).

It's not strawman, it's on the same level in the science spectrum as decisively not scientific at all. It's meant to (hopefully) help them understand how stupid of a suggestion they're proposing by offering an equally stupid example.

> The question is, should being a "flat earther" be banned from online monopolies as misinformation?

No, the question is should we reward them for their misinformation content and the answer is no.

Flat-earthers should be given as much room as they want to make fools of themselves. I find the notion of "it's on YouTube, therefore it's authoritative" intriguing.

i remember not long ago lancet scientists claimed that the lab leak was some kind of ridiculous conspiracy theory.

Scientists can be corrupted too.

It turned out that 26 of those 27 scientists who signed the Lancet letter had undisclosed conflicts of interests due to connections with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9980015/26-Lancet-s...). Chief among them Peter Daszak, President of Ecohealth Alliance, whom we now know was involved in gain of function research with WIV that involved SARS-like viruses that could bind to the ACE2 receptor (https://journals.asm.org/doi/pdf/10.1128/jvi.02582-15).

No one and no institution is an authority. Some people and institutions certainly have more credibility. But ultimately a core tenant of classical liberalism and the enlightenment is there are no authorities. Kings are authorities. Popes are authorities. We moved away from that for a reason.

Saying that, you’re right. If your science sucks then you should be ignored because there is little chance of finding a consensus of truth in it.

Does the mainstream media back up any of its claims that are supposedly scientific. "Trust the science", ask Galileo if he trusted the science of his time.