It's difficult to claim that it's crying wolf in the comment section of an article by a reputable mainstream source telling us what's happening. Honestly it is a little surprising that the mainstream is even admitting the censorship is happening and not helping hide it "for the good of the people," but I guess if this article didn't appear they'd lose what was left of their credibility.

How much content needs to be censored before we can talk about censorship without "crying wolf"?

How many people have to die because of misinformation before it's OK to take it down?

Big bad "misinformation". The CCP also use that word as an excuse for censorship.

You fight misinformation with more information, not censorship.

> These peasants can't think for themselves, we have to tell them what to think! Especially if they disagree or dissent!

First it was "think of the children!"

Then it was "think of grandma!"

Now it's "think of the gullible!"

Ah, so how do you do that, because the current approach does not seem to work.

And when do you as platform owner think enough people died because of the content you host?

The current approach is to ban dissent for sanctioned topics (lab leak, hunter's laptop, vaccinations, etc.) and I agree that it's not working, because you get an echo chamber and force critics into the darkness whether they are right or wrong.

The right approach is always more information. People can think for themselves, $5000 of Russian ads didn't do anything more or have any more lies a D or R campaign ad did, so stop pretending it did.

If you want to ban foreign actors, that's fine. Targeting citizens with legit concerns and ideas is wrong and violates their rights, even if you launder your tyranny through private companies.

> The current approach is to ban dissent for sanctioned topics

This is a fairly new approach.

>The right approach is always more information. People can think for themselves,

This has been tried for many years, i don't know how old you are but the Jenny McCarthy authism stuff is still around.

If "misinformation" were easily discriminated, there would be no need to wait for consequences to properly label it.

Give me liberty or give me death. Very simple.

Much too simple for people so conditioned to crafting rule sets to solve problems.