Much of what you describe as 'censoring' was focused on stopping the promotion of false cures eg Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, H2O2 nebulization etc. This type of speech is already highly regulated, as most people lack the capacity to 'do their own research' regarding a drug's safety or efficacy.
HCQ, while it has been bourne out that it doesn't work, was a perfect example of miscommunication and "protective censorship" breeding public mistrust: the initial papers that cast doubt on HCQ were based on fabricated data. Based on this initial bit of false data and (a strong helping of the stupidest kind of politics) the media jumped head-first into censorship and ridicule. The clinical trials for HCQ were halted (ugh). And then they were shown to be basing that on fabricated data. It was an utter disaster:
https://www.science.org/content/article/two-elite-medical-jo...
Subsequently, while I don't personally believe that Ivermectin works, we're still waiting for clinical trials to complete. Let's keep a tighter grip on our horses, please.
Yes, "people are dying" is the favored rallying cry for any number of poorly considered, knee-jerk reactions to unfortunate events.
It's a big country. People die from lots of things every day, including a staggering number of people who die from overdoses from innocuous medications. A surprising number of these people poison themselves with supplements in the name of "healthy living" (leading to thousands of ED visits a year), but we don't seem to be eager to leap to censorship and ridicule for that problem:
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/harmful-effects-of-suppl...
We don't change the parameters of science because of a few cherry-picked examples, and we shouldn't engage in censorship of factual information because "people are dying".
Supplements are regulated in the US as foods, not drugs. If the makers of these supplements claim they treat, cure or diagnose any disease the claims can be censored.
>we shouldn't engage in censorship of factual information
Most of what was said about fake covid cures was not factual and/or exaggerated. The case could certainly be made that many of those promoting said solutions stood to benefit commercially and politically from spreading the false information (including many senior politicians).
It's not 'censorship of factual information' for a private service to choose to put health warnings against or delete fact free claims of HCQ as a miracle cure. Indeed "healthy living" supplement hucksters are ridiculed and kicked off platforms on a regular basis, even when some of the claims they make about "healthy living" have a tenuous connection to fact.
We don't change the parameters of science to pretend that people insisting that a pandemic isn't a threat because self-administering a moderately dangerous drug is effective prophlaxis are presenting "factual information" because the people doing so are supporters of politicians rather than pill vendors.
All of which is tangential to my original point which is that "HCQ is a miracle cure" became a meme entirely divorced from the tentative (and probably manipulated) evidence of therapeutic benefit well before attempts to shut it down or the Surgisphere "study", so I can't imagine why more blame is apportioned to them than the public figures making evidence-free claims about it from the very beginning.
I'm not going to get into the "it isn't censorship if it's a private company" debate. That's a facile argument. Silencing of speech is wrong. Full stop. I'm not debating semantics. If the only way you can rebut an argument is by silencing it, then you lose the debate. Get better at defending your beliefs in the marketplace of ideas.
Regarding "factual information": if 2020-21 should have taught you anything about actual science (vs. The Science (tm)), it is the importance of humility. Today's "scientific fact" is tomorrow's misinformation. We've seen this time and again throughout the pandemic -- except that one side is always less than forthright than the other about the times when their preferred facts are wrong.
AI bots and armies of low-wage employees at Facebook and Twitter are useless as arbiters of scientific truth. And science, as a process, depends on the ability of unpopular opinions to exist and be debated. Because sometimes, they're right.
Your desire to "protect people" against information that you deem to be dangerous is only as good as your ability to know what is dangerous. And the masses are finding out about this Dangerous Misinformation anyway, so it's not like the tactics are working. The two major accomplishments of this strategy appear to be:
1) making the censors look like fools on a regular basis, and
2) hardening the opposition and mistrust by the people being censored to the point where you are engaged in all-out war.
So if your goal was destroying trust and confidence in medical authority, and increasing partisan polarization, while hardening ~half the population into rigid ideological positions, mazeltov. The experiment was a success.
Science, as a process, does not depend on the ability of unpopular (or in this case, very popular) opinions to be broadcast to a sufficiently large number of laypeople on a particular channel. HCQ research was carried out despite rather than because Bob from Texas or Luis from Brazil read some drivel about a miracle cure written by a fan of a politician who had touted it as a miracle cure. And yes, it would have been much better if the Surgisphere paper was silenced before rather than after publication.
But I reiterate, the argument that encouragement to buy Invermectin has an inalienable right to appear in my inbox which encouragement to buy Viagra apparently doesn't because this time it's politicians shilling it is completely orthogonal to my original point, which is that people were damaging their health self-administering HCQ long before Surgisphere published or social media started to get nervous. So if we want to understand why Americans are so keen on quack cures and so hostile to stuff that has more scientific evidence behind it, we probably want to start with some very influential people that promoted that attitude, and doubled down on it as being a test of partisan loyalties. Blaming the censors seems at best a distraction and at worst an attempt to to shield the promoters from their responsibility. After all, we had Facebook censorship and ridicule of pseuds (and frequent poorly-communicated changes in public health guidelines) in my country too, but that didn't stop nearly all adults from agreeing to be vaccinated.
It would be amusing how confident you are in your pronouncements of who deserves to have speech "for science", if it weren't so scary.
Speaking as a scientist, I want to hear all of it, and I don't need you to help out. The only thing in the realm of speech that can truly hurt me is the risk of misled by moral busybodies who think they know what is true and virtuous, and try to control what I hear "for my own good."
A bit weird how you started off with a tirade about the real world consequences of publishing a fake paper (I think we actually agree that was bad) as well as an insistence that in engaging in ridicule and fact checking was "miscommunication" breeding public mistrust then. Stop pronouncing speech had harmful consequences, you moral busybody! And how dare the Lancet take that paper down!
I'm sorry you're scared about my confidence in the future of scientific research not depending on Invermectin partisans (or anyone else) being able to publish stuff on Facebook.com without content warnings. Personally, I'd see much more reason to be scared if I wasn't confident in my pronouncement that scientific research will go on regardless of how Facebook chooses to filter its newsfeed.
This cannot be underscored enough. If you censor criticism of a viewpoint, people won't decide it's right. They will decide it's definitely wrong.
This is sort of the Joe Rogan argument: fight misinformation by talking louder and more convincingly. I am legitimately curious, in what way could the pro-vaccine community do a better job of defending their beliefs in the marketplace of ideas?
The data is clear that vaccines save lives, they have generally mild side effects and they reduce transmission of COVID. This data has been made freely available to the public in an unprecedented way. Politicians, celebrities, athletes and scientists have all spoken convincingly in favor of vaccinations. Despite these efforts, the country that first developed the vaccine now ranks 52nd globally in terms of number of eligible individuals vaccinated. What went wrong?
The second reason is, well, the free discussion of the nuances of the vaccine has largely not been allowed/socially acceptable. The vaccine is being pushed in very forceful way while honest (if not always scientifically accurate) discussion is repressed. Although there will certainly be a group too far gone to ever accept the vaccine, this strategy of a heavy handed and propaganda-like approach seems to be causing the vaccine hesitant to only dig in their heels further. The vaccine can't win in the marketplace of ideas if the marketplace is not allowed to exist.
Instead of presenting the vaccine information as a flood of not to be questioned, yet well meaning, propaganda I'd prefer an open and honest dialogue that meets an individual where they're at.
What specifically is lacking in the pro-vaccine argument? I'm not asking about censorship, as it is seemingly a moot point. OPs point is that the argument needs to be made more convincingly and spoken louder. What does that look like in practice?
Brilliantly parodied in this music video: https://youtu.be/eXWhbUUE4ko
The original claims of HCQ's effectiveness against Covid came from doctors in China, early in 2020. At least, these were the first reports I was aware of.
Commercial speech (e.g., advertising) about drugs is highly regulated, but speech of ordinary citizens (who don't have a financial interest in the drugs being discussed) isn't regulated by the government since it is protected by the First Amendment.
Additionally ivermectin is not a cure, it instead has proven effectiveness in attenuating the duration and severity of symptoms. That the scientific studies demonstrating this are not allowed to be even discussed on major social media platforms is a red flag.