[flagged]
Because you don’t get to come up with a “theory” and dump the burden of the proof on someone else. That’s incredibly stupid. Not how how science and common sense work.
The evidence comes at the end not before the theory
And I see how the concept of “misinformation” can be used very broadly to silence political opponents. But I do wish there was a perfect solution.
The problem with that position is, who decides what counts as "clearly damaging"? What if the government and media were extremely anti-vaccine and chose to censor pro-vaccine speech instead, calling it "clearly damaging"?
That seems like a slightly tortured double negative.
Christians say God exists
Atheists say God doesn't exist.
Christians tell the atheists to prove that God doesn't exist.
Atheists say you can't disprove a negative.
Christians take that as winning the argument.
Atheists take that as Christians being stupid and close minded.
Atheists counter with telling the Christians to prove God does exist.
Christians say you have to take it on faith.
Repeat ad nauseum extremis infinitum.