Because most people are more adverse to criminalization of publishing misinformation & you need one or other to prevent disastrous outcomes.
-
-
Replying to @RichFelker @whitequark
FWIW my view is opposite; I'd rather publishing/advising quackery be criminal & self-medication with good factual info be legal.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker
to enforce that you'll need a pretty serious censorship machine, which is arguably even worse
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @whitequark
If censorship = prior restraint, no. Just prosecuting ppl who go around promoting quackery.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker @whitequark
There's always a money trail to the ones having significant impact.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker @whitequark
And if you think quackery has no impact on public health just look at the antivax movement.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker
as much as it saddens me to say it, in context of United States distrust of public health measures is rational
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @whitequark @RichFelker
this is the government that has quite literally and deliberately poisoned or infected its citizens
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @whitequark @RichFelker
"don't put fluoride in our water" is not an unreasonable demand in this context
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Much less than ppl claim, but I agree it's a reasonable demand in context of distrust & power dynamics.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.