The Censored: Bret Weinstein

> In Sept. 2020, Politifact “fact checked” the lab leak hypothesis and declared it a “pants on fire lie.” Politifact was forced to walk that conclusion back in May 2021

I've always taken some umbrage with the "truth-o-meter" on PolitiFact. Even "walked back" is a bad option in this case. The options on the meter are:

- True

- Mostly True

- Half True

- Mostly False

- False

- Pants on Fire

There seems to be an incredibly glaring omission on that list: "Not enough information yet collected". I'm aware that's maybe a nitpick or an annoying observation... But _not knowing_ is a vital, vital skill and the basis of the modern world. I find it strange that the "willingness to not know" is a fairly under-discussed topic. The 'truth' is that -we don't know- if COVID came from a lab. That's OKAY, and we can behave properly if we choose to not know what we cannot know.

Those of us in science who are genuinely interested in the truth (of nature, of the world), and not the exercise of justifying some religious-esque dogma of our own unconscious beliefs, seem increasingly outnumbered and outshouted by the orthodox choir. It is frightening because “science” now carries with it a powerful authoritarian connotation. That the lab leak was written off so early, and whatever the cost of that to society, is a consequence of this. Our age may be one of dogma masquerading as science. But this emperor lacks clothes.

That article is VERY one-sided. I think this is a better one: https://jakubferencik.medium.com/the-controversy-of-bret-wei...

It doesn’t take a lot of distance from the moment to recognize this is the era of grappling with the meaning of the Internet. Eugene Wei had an interesting framing of this: he asked whether China’s great firewall was an indicator that they believed in the power of the Internet more than the West did. (His implication wasn’t that the firewall was good.)

I’m torn about Weinstein’s current situation. I’m opposed to censorship, but I’m unsure we treat mass public broadcast with the responsibility it requires. What particularly bothers me about the lab leak discussion is that we don’t yet have firm evidence one way or another, so any debate is public speculation. Is it harmless to do that?

To be clear: My question isn’t whether YouTube should censor the discussion. My question is whether Brett should be letting himself speculate about it. Is there any harm in doing that? Why or why not?

If I was in Weinstein's position, I would create my own website with the ability to stream the full length episodes. Then use YouTube to show short clips that hint at the full content on said website - these short clips wouldn't break YouTube rules.

Then just push a link to the full episodes in the shorts. This is being used by other broadcasters who are in danger of being silenced by FAANG.

- https://publicseminar.org/essays/why-we-should-outlaw-oppres...

- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/000484008023703...

Trust the experts until the experts disagree with me then they must be banned and silenced.

It is sad that science is turning from robust debate and dialog to more dark times of orthodoxy where heretics of "the truth" must be burned

Although I appreciate his content there is something about his behaviour that almost seems to invites this kind of response, not that he says anything wrong persé, but from an evolutionary point of view it is unfit for the current environment.