[flagged]
If you think there's nothing wrong with the idea that "censorship is good as long as I'm not the one being censored", I don't know what to tell you.
In fact, as speech absolutists have taken over a few platforms, we've discovered that the primary hypocrisy surrounding speech is that there's a lot of people who claim to be speech absolutists, but aren't when push comes to shove.
It's astounding how many people are incapable of making judgments except along artificial lines given to them by sophists.
[Citation Needed]
Even if researchers are wrong initially, because of lack of data, they are still acting in good faith. Which you can't say for people who are spreading made up or poorly sourced information to make a buck.
Society generally frowns upon allowing people to blatantly lie or act in bad faith order to sell products. While that might be a form of censorship, it's one that society largely benefits from having in place.
A researcher or other "expert" should have at least some sense of when the data being used are limited, flawed, or even unavailable.
Under such circumstances, the only way to act in good faith would be for such a person to say something along the lines of, "I don't know" or "It's not possible to say at this time."
Such a person making some other authoritative pronouncement (even with caveats attached), especially if it turns out to be incorrect, should not be seen as "acting in good faith".
I personally don't mind deletion of antivax stuff because I'm not antivax. But I can see the point of view those mentioning what happens when there is deletion/censorship of things in the future that I could have interest in.
We also do know that there exists "some" subset of things that were mentioned that seemed antivax on the surface but did actually turn out to be true or at least somewhat true. But these were usually not outright false claims, but informed speculations or very niche.
It was such a dividing topic that any form of skepticism however small was seen as an attack. This as someone who is vaxed and has gotten every booster available.
The term antivax is a problem.
Very few people are actually anti all vaccines, and nobody should be pro all vaccines for everyone all the time. There have been actual truly failed vaccines, are you "antivax" if you wouldn't volunteer to take them? Should articles about past failed vaccines be censored from the internet? Of course not.
The term is sloppy and careless, but people love it, probably because it lets you be part of a team. But everybody means something different by it.
Nobody should presume any new implementation of a class is good just because there have been previous successful implementations. Reality doesn't make things so easy for us.
There are reasons someone might want to find those links, even if they disagree with them. When Google hides them from you without your consent or ability to opt out, they're treating you as if you were a child. Or perhaps more like livestock.
That's what "Manufacturing Consent" isn't it? That entire concept seems sound and passes the smell test. People see things repeatedly from authoritive-sounding people and they believe it (in the case of the book, by governments and their catspaws).
There is no reason a search and social bubble wouldn't wind up with a similar outcome.
I only said it sarcastically about the original commenter because it's difficult to believe that anyone could truly be like that. Sure, we're all aware of the dregs who seem to form their political beliefs from Uncle Creepy's Facebook meme pictures, but I've always believed those people to be nothing more than a (sizable) minority.
The thing is, this likely is true for him. Most people are not equipped to deal with the onslaught of aggressive memes from the internet. Unfortunately, this is an unsolved social problem, and "export my memetic censorship reflex to MEGACORP" is a pretty bad way of doing things.
I think a likely way of solving this problem (protecting not-especially-high-mental-horsepower people from getting BTFO by the internet, contracting transmissible psychological diseases and so on) is that religious organizations will start offering (voluntary, in first world countries) censorship services to their members. Your DNS queries or whatever will go through the Vatican/Synod/whatever central DNS server, which will prevent you from looking at porn sites. This would probably be a very socially positive outcome for the bottom 90-something percent of people on the "strength of memetic immune system" distribution.
It's true for basically everyone. Smart people, "rationalists", et c., fall for scams, nutty scientific or conspiracy theories, advertising, romantic political or economic ideas, cults or scam-religions, and other crap all the time.
I wouldn't necessarily exclude myself from the set of people who would benefit from externally managed filtering.
I have seen something similar to this in the wild. Members of a church install spyware on their home computer that church officials can access to snoop on their internet traffic for "accountability" reasons. Members are shamed for looking at any content deemed wrong.
One young man got in trouble for looking at SFW images of models. Turned out he wasn't even the one who had visited the site, it was his sister looking at fashion ideas.
Also, it's not the job of a search engine to be your nanny. What if you are researching conspiracy theories or opposition beliefs, even if you don't believe in them? How would you find them?
The article I was looking for was about intravascular injection of the vaccine, and its possible relation to adverse effects, which now has merit in 2023 [1].
[1] https://pure.hud.ac.uk/en/publications/inadvertent-injection...
Correct: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9313234/