Medical disinformation during a pandemic?

These conversations often end up in some weird motte and bailey where you argue that you care about free speech, but it turns out that you actually just thought COVID was not real/not significant/not dangerous/not an emergency. So your issue ends up not being that they made a decision on it (free speech concern), but that you feel it was the wrong decision (content-specific concern).

So before we go back and forth on the intricacies of content moderation, can you briefly describe your beliefs on COVID?

▲

zeroonetwothree an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I agree 100% with scientific consensus on covid but I also don’t support deplatforming based on viewpoint (vs content).

	▲	estearum 21 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		What’s the distinction you’re drawing between viewpoint and content…?

▲

vlyan an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

and so the goalpost moves from "it's hate speech" to "it's whatever we unilaterally decide to be verbotten to speak about".

	▲	estearum 36 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Well I wasn’t the one who said “it’s hate speech.” There are a number of things that get content-moderated. Hate speech, porn, bullying, doxxing, disinformation, Islamist propaganda, violent imagery, revenge porn, animal abuse imagery, incitements to violence, criminal planning, drug dealing, arms dealing, gambling, fraud, etc As a free speech maximalist, are you willing to defend all of those with the same vigor as the COVID case? Or do you too actually draw a content-based line somewhere (while pretending you don’t?)