> Malone knowingly lied about safety, making claims he knew were untrue at the time he made them and continued to do so.
What is your source for this? Aren’t you assuming bad faith?
Regardless I think you are missing the point. Dissent by definition will not have to conform to your worldview or notions of what is true or who is considered a scientist. If you only allow things which your worldview considers true, that is not real dissent. Twitter does not permit real dissent on their platform.
There was a time when the claims Galileo was making about the sun were not considered true nor were they acknowledged by scientists. Really consider that.
> Had he simply said “I don’t agree with this” his account would still be active like all of the other people who do this.
No, if I tweeted “I do not agree that the vaccines are safe enough.” I would get banned. How do I know this? Because I tweeted this and I was banned from Twitter. You’re not being honest.
What is your source for this? Aren’t you assuming bad faith?
Regardless I think you are missing the point. Dissent by definition will not have to conform to your worldview or notions of what is true or who is considered a scientist. If you only allow things which your worldview considers true, that is not real dissent. Twitter does not permit real dissent on their platform.
There was a time when the claims Galileo was making about the sun were not considered true nor were they acknowledged by scientists. Really consider that.
> Had he simply said “I don’t agree with this” his account would still be active like all of the other people who do this.
No, if I tweeted “I do not agree that the vaccines are safe enough.” I would get banned. How do I know this? Because I tweeted this and I was banned from Twitter. You’re not being honest.