Yes, a link suggesting 1k of 44k participants in the Pfizer Phase III trials were not well monitored and had other logistical issues does not surprise me. It does not concern me either; have you seen the reduced IFR post vaccination? It is not like 2% of 1/3 vaccines phase III participants is even a notable amount of the data. Like I said, if this type of thing is enough for you to go forward and claim that the whole thing is a lie, I think you’re creeping into some very dumb territory.

Not the original poster but even if completely false information, it should be free to be posted. Let the company be sued for making false claims if they are claiming to be a journalist. If they aren’t even claiming to be a journalist they anyone dumb enough to rely into hem as their only source deserves whatever bad information they believe. If any of these videos with bad information get large enough there will be a response equal or larger in viewership size with the truth.

You condone posting false information freely while impersonating credible organizations, and assert that the people fooled by this are the problem and not the liar?

I don’t get that stance, but more importantly: why is this relevant to anything in discussion here?

The post your originally responded to claimed that YouTube was taken down legitimate sources of information. You then claimed they are false information as why they are taken down or deserves to be taken down. My point it regardless if it is true it should be shown and not censored. I never mentioned anything about impersonation and said the opposite of what you are questioning.

> I never mentioned anything about impersonation and said the opposite of what you are questioning

Surely in the modern disinformation environment you are joking when you write "[l]et the company be sued for making false claims" as if that is a moral justification to allow bad actors a platform. (If not, please search court cases relating to Fox News being sued for lying and their subsequent incredibly ironic justifications.) I understand what you think it is - an appeal to authority - but it's laughably naive. How many spreaders of misinformation during this pandemic faced any repercussion at all?

Intentionally spreading misinformation about a pandemic, or for that matter any time one spreads known misinformation in order to manipulate others, should be harshly condemned as morally despicable, and also made impossible wherever possible. It is clear people will act in their short term interest wherever possible, and I would not describe "social isolation" or most other appropriate measures as fitting that bucket.

Finally, before you argue that I shouldn't support "censorship" from unregulated big tech, please know that I fully agree and I believe free speech to be an important concept. I find it unjustifiable and deeply concerning how analogous being removed from FaceTwitTube is to being censored / silenced / "cancelled", but I refuse to act as if the principal of freedom means you should be able to use web technologies to maliciously act against others.

Misinformation is not impersonation. That is very different, understand? Anyways misinformation is rarely intentional, it is purely bias. Those people usually believe something is true and they are just wrong and there is hardly any harm in that. The thing is companies make themselves arbiters of truth and are wrong often as well, and by silencing debate they cause much more damage when they are wrong than random idiots. It is akin to the church silencing Galileo or banning Copernicus’s books on heliocentric theory because they went against mainstream science at the time, but they turned out to be correct. The point is these companies do not have scientists and do not have the latest data and act rashly and quickly enforcing government laws that we have all found from COVID to be wrong and to constantly change. Yet the damage they cause was already done.

Pathetic response. Misdirection, bending half the points made, ignoring the rest. Go away, stop trying to argue antivax stance is as valid as Galileo’s literal science, the data is clear

You are arguing in bad faith. You’ve stopped talking about the topic and instead about me. Grow up.