"Because 90% of it was not reasonable doubt, it was manipulative BS"

Yes, but the problem is, that the remaining 10% were treated the same way.

(but I think, the numbers are actually more like 98% BS and 2 % legitimate, fact based doubt)

... To balance your point, which tbf has some truth in it, 99% of coverage on that topic from so called respected sources was manipulative bullshit.

Dissenting opinions were censored by the millions across social media.

Meanwhile, anyone who felt the lab leak theory was at least worth investigating was accused of being a Russian, Trumpist, anti-science piece of shit.

Daszak's paper was obvious bullshit. Not in hindsight, not on close reading, but on immediate reading by anyone with basic experience and logic. Yet across government, media and academia it was cited as the definitive scientific position on the matter, case closed, stfu.

... So if you're going to blame people for mixing their discussion with corporate news and political stunts, then you're going to have to share that blame with all responsible parties. They've fully earned the ire and distrust which many across the political spectrum now hold them in.

And we still haven't had a proper investigation in Wuhan, there's been no accountability for Daszak's conflict of interest, there's been no one held to account for the unprecedented censorship across Twitter and FB. No corporate media have been held responsible for their bullying and their bullshit.

If you want people to have smarter discussions about this, I'd remember the above before accusing everyone of just 'getting their info from politicians and FB'.

If dissenting opinions were censored by the media why is everyone aware of them?

Delta t:. were, past tense, is: present tense.

And what was the period of time in which that information was unavailable in mass?

Around the last election.

What was censored?

I was banned from twitter for pointing out that a 95% efficacy in a 6 week clinical trial does not mean a 95% efficacy a year out in the real world.

Somehow that was anti-vaxx.

Prove that's the reason you were banned. What if you're lying to make a political point?

How?

I don't know, I'm not the one making the claim. You want me to just believe you with no evidence but I should scrutinize researches intensely?

If you don't know what proof looks like then trying to prove anything to you is pointless.

You're the one who made the claim, I'm not required to help you prove it or describe what kind of evidence might be valid. You should already be able to do that before you made the claim.

If you dont know what would convince you then nothing will.

The fact that you seem unaware of the censorship shows how little consequence there was for the deception.

Google it man: FB and Twitter deleted MILLIONS of posts. They flagged hundreds of millions more as potentially disinformation, reducing engagement by ~90%.

The NYT said themselves that the media failed us on this - eventually, in May last year. [0] Still, they didn't acknowledge their own role, and put it in the opinion section.

And here you are, a year later, carrying water for them. You're not alone - many seem oblivious to their manipulation. It's bizarre, and quite scary.

"How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!"

[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/31/opinion/media-lab-leak-th...

The fact that you are aware of what was censored shows how little impact individual companies censoring information has.

Also how do you know those posts didn't have content that violated those companies rules?

> The fact that you are aware of what was censored shows how little impact individual companies censoring information has.

That may be your fundamental misunderstanding here.

Censoring millions of posts and drastically reducing engagement on hundreds of millions more has a very serious effect.

I'm aware, because I sought that information out - but most people I talk to still have lingering misinformation on those subjects. You yourself seemed to think there wasn't any such censorship, before the goalposts were moved. I'm reminded of the narcissist's prayer.

> how do you know those posts didn't have content that violated those companies rules?

Maybe many did violate the companies rules. But the rules were wrong-headed. Legitimate and necessary debate was stifled and perverted at a global scale, and up until half an hour ago you hadn't even heard of it.

By the company rules I meant racism for example. Show me a lab leak post that is simply information that was censored