> This time there was valid concern about issues like the lab leak theory being censored on social media
You need to be very clear about what you mean by "lab leak theory" because that term has a number of definitions that are very different.
There's the definition where COVID was the result of gain of function research that leaked from a lab through negligence. There's also a definition that it was an entirely natural virus being studied that was leaked through negligence. Then there's the definition that the virus was "leaked" with malicious intent from the virology lab in Wuhan.
While the definitions are similar they have very different implications. Because social media tends to perform nuance destroying compression of concepts down to sound bites no two individuals using the term "lab leak theory" can be assumed to be using the same definition.
You even have an assumed definition of what you mean when you say "lab leak theory". Of everyone that reads your post your definition doesn't match that of half the audience. Even then, plenty of people claimed to be banned from social media for one reason while the reality they were banned from a network for other (or a combination) of reasons. So even the general statement of people being "social media censoring lab leak theory" elides important information and nuance and derives its validity from third hand accounts.
What about things like not having algorithmic boosting for the tin-foil hat versions? Some people insist that’s censorship but it seems like a useful way to avoid promoting it to people who aren’t already seeking it out.
> Turns out a lot of tin-foil hat stuff is true after all.
Not really, no. For example, actual scientists were discussing the possibility of the COVID pandemic having arisen from a lab leak seriously and looking for evidence that could support that theory but the conspiracy nuts were going on about it being a “ChiComm bio weapon” because their goal was political rather than learning the truth. (Only the latter encountered terms of service actions, typically due to racism or targeting specific people, but their supporters often falsely claim they were in the former group)
That’s the easy rule of thumb: is someone approaching the problem rationally, etc. or are they starting from the position they want and trying to work backwards? Are they willing to seek out evidence and adjust based on new information, or do they find reasons to dismiss it?
I don’t trust you or anyone to be the moderators of what’s rational and what’s working back from what they want, though, in all honesty.
Further, the people working backwards sometimes end up right anyway.
I just don’t see the risk of letting some tin foil hatters do their thing, or much much less risk than letting our discussion platforms become censorious, propaganda machines. Maybe if we let the less censored versions run and there ends up being negative effects then I can re-assess, but until then the default should be to let people be dumb and invest into better education.
For the record, I saw very little of the full on conspiratorial stuff, and lots of the more sane lab leak stuff, but I saw it basically entirely de-boosted and censored. So we have already a really strong case study for why we shouldn’t let people even attempt to split those hairs.
> I just don’t see the risk of letting some tin foil hatters do their thing
It's the calls to action by the tinfoil hat crowd that is problematic and most typically why platforms shut down their posts. The buried lede in most stories about censorship on social media is the people getting posts removed weren't just spouting tinfoil hat theories but were directly or indirectly calling for violence or harassment of certain ethnic groups. A veiled or coded call for violence is still a call for violence.
Social media, no matter stupid claims to the contrary, is not a public forum or town square. It's owned by private interests. It may be publicly available but it is not owned and operated by the public.
Private platforms don't usually want to amplify racist dog whistles or other coded rhetoric when they've been made aware of it. Attention seekers love when they get censored because they can run to another platform to complain they got censored for claiming COVID leaked from a lab but not the follow up post where they used that as justification for torching an Asian market.
idk man intentionally adding a "truth" bias indirectly denies a lot of human existence and experiences -- it is inherently invalidating, and i am not totally sure just how much of it is good for intellectual pursuit (and also in reaching improved, collective understandings).
this is not me saying there's zero benefit to moderated dialogues, but what's better for overall intellectual pursuits? a dialogue that's inviting, or one that always coldly and dismissively rejects all opposing beliefs or understandings?
i have recently learned, that dialogues seem to benefit from communication and spaces that are supportive and empathetic in their approach to first understanding differences in reality and experiences, before entering discussions on truth and objective realities, and therefore confronting and challenging, and at times overcoming what are limiting beliefs -- from the irrational to the rational.
there's empiricism around this as well (SET: a framework for communicating with people who have vastly different experiences than you, including those labeled "delusional") -- it frames Support and Empathy as the necessary foundations in any dialogue, before one can discuss the difference in each party's Truth.
i'm not so sure the whole categorically "you have less right to sit at this table because i've judged your experience as non-real, and therefore less relevant) is compassionate communication, nor productive when systematically, algorithmically applied.
The only definition the government should be involved in censoring would be one that is illegal and in that case they can get their lawyers and proceed with an indictment. Anything else is just propaganda.
You need to be very clear about what you mean by "lab leak theory" because that term has a number of definitions that are very different.
There's the definition where COVID was the result of gain of function research that leaked from a lab through negligence. There's also a definition that it was an entirely natural virus being studied that was leaked through negligence. Then there's the definition that the virus was "leaked" with malicious intent from the virology lab in Wuhan.
While the definitions are similar they have very different implications. Because social media tends to perform nuance destroying compression of concepts down to sound bites no two individuals using the term "lab leak theory" can be assumed to be using the same definition.
You even have an assumed definition of what you mean when you say "lab leak theory". Of everyone that reads your post your definition doesn't match that of half the audience. Even then, plenty of people claimed to be banned from social media for one reason while the reality they were banned from a network for other (or a combination) of reasons. So even the general statement of people being "social media censoring lab leak theory" elides important information and nuance and derives its validity from third hand accounts.