"There are those who deny that the pandemic even exists, there are those who think that wearing a mask will literally suffocate you, there are those who think it's no worse than a regular flu virus, that it's a bioweapon, and everything in between."
And everything in between? How do I possibly know what idea is "approved" and what is off-limits? There was a time when saying you didn't need to disinfect surfaces every hour was fringe. Lab leak was WILDLY fringe and now it's at least a viable topic. These things evolve because we don't allow them to become dogma, but instead present evidence. Take mask efficacy. It's a hot debate right now but they link to a couple of papers and act as if that means it's settled science. What if I have a couple of peer-reviewed articles saying otherwise? How do I present that without being banned in this world?