Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Idixal t1_j06zjy8 wrote

Reply to comment by UniversalMomentum in Autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination by Razariousnefarian

The difficult thing with making misleading information illegal is- who decides what’s true? In this case it’s pretty simple with scientific consensus pointing towards the most obvious truth, but there are plenty of cases where the truth is not known.

The challenge is that if the government decides what is true, then the government has the ability to decide what is and isn’t legal to say, and that is simply the total death of free speech.

All said, I wish we could do something about people who maliciously distribute misinformation. It’s really frustrating knowing that a lot of lawmakers knowingly mislead people during the pandemic, leading to many more deaths than were necessary.

36

LordArgon t1_j09nsnb wrote

The ONLY rational answer is that there should be a confidence level based on global expert opinion and what’s allowed should be a function of that confidence and the potential damage of being wrong. In the case of something like COVID, that’s synthesizing opinions based on the WHO as well as the public health departments of most major nations. In areas where they don’t clearly agree, you have to have to give more leeway than in areas where they do.

No, it’s not perfect but no perfect system exists and unfettered misinformation is demonstrably worse than relying on expert opinion. What you need to watch out for is corruption but that’s literally always a risk in any system. And if you’re going to claim corruption, then you’d better be willing to go to court with specific actionable evidence.

1