Yes best practices were followed, compared to objectively bad practices that you seem to be suggesting.
> And I'll happily go along with a consensus that I feel was freely obtained, which is not what we are talking about. I do it all the time.
Snake oil comment. You feel you get to be the judge of what is valid not actual consensus of experts. Nope. No thanks.
> Do you believe that the amount you can be heard should depend on how much money you have?
That's how it is currently. I'm not sure how you change that without going to something like communism, which surly you are not suggesting.
> Do you believe that an Administration should be allowed make secret decisions on what's shown to people?
100% yes. State secrets exist for a reason. If you mean decisions on what information people are allowed to disseminate then still yes. There are lots of classes of information that are rightly restricted. Excluding state secrets, things like child porn and other people's personal information are good examples. If you are advocating for some sort of anarchy then go find yourself your own island to ruin please.
> Maybe it wouldn't be fringe if millions of posts about it hadn't been suppressed.
Said like every crank with a pet theory. If you want your idea to be taken seriously it's on YOU to convince people and demonstrate evidence of them. It's not others obligation to listen to your crap, let alone fund you to "research" and spread your ideas.
"Best practices were followed, compared to what I imagine you think. Messaging was consistent and based on evidence. No I will not back any of this up in the slightest, nor acknowledge the myriad ways this is demonstrably, laughably false."
Cool, ok.
"Millions upon millions of posts might have been deleted, researchers threatened, media and social media leaned on in various ways, all documented, but the consensus is accurate. Science is a popularity contest, and you're snake oil".
Sssure.
"Money is speech, and the only alternative I can imagine is communism".
Sounds like a you problem tbh. A deep one.
"State secrets can include genuinely bad stuff, so 100% of everything they censor must be bad. Go ruin an island if you want better".
Sane take bud. I actually hate improving things where my family and I live. Also my solution to scientists being censored at global scale was in fact to move to a private island and become a dictator. How did you know? So impressive.
"The lab leak theory is for cranks. If those censored, pressured and threatened scientists wanted people to see their evidence, they should have demonstrated their evidence. Also they don't have a right for their evidence to be seen, or a right to investigate for evidence."
> And I'll happily go along with a consensus that I feel was freely obtained, which is not what we are talking about. I do it all the time.
Snake oil comment. You feel you get to be the judge of what is valid not actual consensus of experts. Nope. No thanks.
> Do you believe that the amount you can be heard should depend on how much money you have?
That's how it is currently. I'm not sure how you change that without going to something like communism, which surly you are not suggesting.
> Do you believe that an Administration should be allowed make secret decisions on what's shown to people?
100% yes. State secrets exist for a reason. If you mean decisions on what information people are allowed to disseminate then still yes. There are lots of classes of information that are rightly restricted. Excluding state secrets, things like child porn and other people's personal information are good examples. If you are advocating for some sort of anarchy then go find yourself your own island to ruin please.
> Maybe it wouldn't be fringe if millions of posts about it hadn't been suppressed.
Said like every crank with a pet theory. If you want your idea to be taken seriously it's on YOU to convince people and demonstrate evidence of them. It's not others obligation to listen to your crap, let alone fund you to "research" and spread your ideas.