What makes it noble and who gets to decide when the interest of the public good is sufficient to suspend the rights of the citizenry? If it is to be believed that most people lack the intelligence to behave in ways that are in their own and society’s best interest then what is the point of democracy? What other rights are we willing to suspend for the interest of the public? Even if it is justified in this instance, what else could the precedent be used for?

This subversion of rights and erosion of trust with government actors directly pushing for censorship, no matter what the intentions, will cast doubt on the system as a whole and any purpose it might have in the short term is far outweighed by the damage it causes in the long term.

I highly recommend reading the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, specifically articles 51 through 55.

This is such an interesting view. I understand this as you accept being taken for an idiot, if it's in your interest. And you accept that the person making that decision has your interest in mind. Do I understand you correctly?

Myself I prefer having all the facts and drawing my own conclusions, being able to ask questions and consider all options. I'm capable of it, and people in power are seldom there based on competence.

Edit: I see I fell for Poe's law. Thank god.

Candidate for worst take in 2022?

Could you elaborate into what is noble about censoring the discussion about the safety of covid-related mitigations by official, recognised scientists?

What are we, children?