Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Cheshire90 t1_izrciqp wrote

Reply to comment by MariachiBoyBand in An analysis of 4511 vaccine-related tweets show that anti-vaccine messaging tends to focus on the "harmful" nature of vaccines, based on personal values and beliefs rather than hard facts. Anonymity did not affect the type of content posted, but did affect volume of content. by glawgii

What emotional plea? I'm advocating against the emotion-based argument that we have to suppress people because maybe rationality might not win out.

People who are reporting their own experience aren't responsible for putting that in context of the rest of the population. They are literally just saying what happened to them.

The rest of us should take their report in context of the balance of evidence, not try to dismiss it because we need all evidence to point 100% in one direction. There will always be evidence for and against any position.

It's not really that threatening for people to be allowed to say wrong or exaggerated things; it going to happen all the time no matter what you do. Sorry to break that news. A lot of it will by by people who are on "your side" of any given issue.

2

Anubisrapture t1_izt2umm wrote

Not in this situation. One side is actually vetted, scientific and the other side is linked to things like Q anon and the hysteria of the far right- which leads to or includes violence and other cult like situations. Both siding this is not a good thing.

1

Cheshire90 t1_iztj19u wrote

Which right wing politicians do you think should be in charge of deciding who gets to speak when they have the majority? Whatever standard you advocate for is going to be applied by the exact people you're afraid of.

Free speech is not about equivalency between sides. The idea that you can vet out who is right and silence anyone who doesn't meet your standard is both a fantasy and will surely backfire on you.

1