If it were just as bad as "The censors want to prevent the bad things", I think I might feel that it would be justifiable. This type of thinking also robs the broader public of its agency to reason. The broader public is not comprised of petulant children, regardless of what the media outlets would tell you and what the behavior of Twitter might show (very few of those people display that sort of behavior in actual life, where consequences happen).

This "moral highgrounding", to protect us from the corruption of verbiage that may occur on one platform or another is a ridiculous idea to think that functional adults might need. We are not so weak as to be protected from ideas that "must not be named". Words are not magic, and people cannot be enchanted by their mere utterances. They can be enticed by them being outlawed and the verboten mystique that makes the forbidden seem so savory.

People may be uneducated, but it is impossible to educate them through silence and the silencing of ideas. These verboten ideas will get spread around, major platform or no. They'll spread without any kind of resistance or discussion and no disinfectant light of truth by debate will be shone on them because they will be pushed down to the nooks and crannies, off of the popular platforms where the light of day can show them to be the BS that they are. They'll find their place in small groups and factions, I felt and grow and split people apart. They'll make people not talk to each other and they'll make us a weaker country and a less educated one. A country that tries to run away from hard questions and conversations because it's easier to tell someone or some group to shut up and don't talk about that, rather than address a topic with an open and honest conversation with facts and dialogue.

Don't think so.

> If we are going to say that censorship is justified because you want to prevent violence

Nope. Just agreeing with my parent comment that there is a significant difference between harm-causing misinformation and this very good election business.

https://www.cedars-sinai.org/newsroom/cedars-sinai-statement...

This was released 3 days prior to his statement: https://irdirect.net/prviewer/release/id/4294930

> Our team has shown that administering a specific spectrum of UV-A light can eradicate viruses in infected human cells (including coronavirus) and bacteria in the area while preserving healthy cells

UV light was mentioned prior in the presser. Trump wasn't specific, but you can't say he said inject bleach, read the transcript for yourself:

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-coronaviru...

It's disingenuous to say he was suggesting for people to inject bleach or disinfectant.

Even if he didn't clarify what disinfectant, he sure as hell didn't tell people to do anything, he was talking about research.

And "something like that" in his statement is not necessarily just filler. Read charitably, he could be asking if a similar effect can be achieved with something else. We use some types of disinfectants for broadly similar effects--like mouth wash. In the past, we've used iodine to disinfect water for drinking, which was ingested.

I'm not saying its a plausible strategy, but its not pants on fire stupid to wonder out-loud if you can get something like a disinfectant inside. I'd imagine you can't, but I can't articulate why you can't beyond the likelihood the required concentrations would destroy your bodies' cells too.

I watched that press conference on tv when it aired. It wasn't even the top 20 dumbest things he said in that conference.