Considering how much of our existence is online these days, it seems like denying people the means to participate is almost like denying their right to exist.
I’d like to see a world where everyone has the capability to shape this digital space in a fair and accessible manner.
Science doesn’t happen just one time. Something being “proven” is generally part of rigorous math, not other sciences. It grows and changes, dissent being a big part of it, over time. I agree with you that people should have access to information, but limiting which is fraught with problems.
Doesn’t seem like you read the comment but wanna support misinformation…
No. I support the publication and scholarly refereeing process, over politicians being given control over what is “proven” and what is “misinformation”. The problem is not that misinformation is allowed, but rather that governments are captured by oligarchs and imbeciles that push that misinformation.
As I just eluded to, no one suggested politicians censor information.
Last I checked “shut up” wasn’t an argument for passing censorship laws
I may have misunderstood, in which case I apologize. But when I read people should have access to “scientifically proven” information, I took that to mean somebody would be the arbiter of that. I otherwise completely agree.
Thalidomide was scientifically proven to be safe
Is it? Or is it “generally recognized as safe” based on research showing a few standard deviations of safe usage. I’m just saying “proven” isn’t a good term when determining what information people should have access to. I’m really not trying to be argumentative here, just precise.
I’m totally agreeing with you. Science isn’t a one off thing some strong man can shoot simple answers with, it’s an ongoing process which requires constant questioning. See also DDT, leaded petrol, CFC refrigerants etc. These would all be unquestioningly added as canon in the “only approved facts allowed” system