They get sick and die from drinking 100k cokes over their life due to watching lots of ads.
No one gets sick from just one exposure to misinformation either. They sick from thousands and thousands that change their behavior.
Ads for coke impact behavior negatively and result in poor health outcomes and death.
Ads for opioid painkillers impact behavior negatively and result in poor health
outcomes and death.
Much more so than any Covid misinformation. That’s why I compared them.
If the goal is to protect people, then we should restrict ads of “unhealthy” things. Right? Have that ministry of truth review what products are healthy or unhealthy.
And just have them review all ads for if they are healthy or unhealthy.
It’s exactly a slippery slope argument. I think applied correctly because if the government does this for some topics they will do them for more. Especially if they apply your logic of whether they should reduce harm.
> Did we fall into a tyrannical dystopia as a result? Did something worse than hundreds of thousands of people dying happen?
This is an unprovable statement. But other countries had better outcomes. Perhaps the government’s actions resulted in more deaths than otherwise. Maybe only 900k would have died instead of 1.1M if government hadn’t restricted information flow.
They get sick and die from drinking 100k cokes over their life due to watching lots of ads.
No one gets sick from just one exposure to misinformation either. They sick from thousands and thousands that change their behavior.
Ads for coke impact behavior negatively and result in poor health outcomes and death.
Ads for opioid painkillers impact behavior negatively and result in poor health
outcomes and death.
Much more so than any Covid misinformation. That’s why I compared them.
If the goal is to protect people, then we should restrict ads of “unhealthy” things. Right? Have that ministry of truth review what products are healthy or unhealthy.
And just have them review all ads for if they are healthy or unhealthy.
It’s exactly a slippery slope argument. I think applied correctly because if the government does this for some topics they will do them for more. Especially if they apply your logic of whether they should reduce harm.
> Did we fall into a tyrannical dystopia as a result? Did something worse than hundreds of thousands of people dying happen?
This is an unprovable statement. But other countries had better outcomes. Perhaps the government’s actions resulted in more deaths than otherwise. Maybe only 900k would have died instead of 1.1M if government hadn’t restricted information flow.