It seems a lot of people are responding to this from the 'allowable speech' and 'consensus is bad' perspective, which triggers the inevitable 'its a private platform' or 'its just one place' response.
We should be looking at this from a threat model perspective. That certain subjects, at certain times, are subject to coordinated threats in order to gain power to those coordinating them. This isn't about 'scientific consensus', this is a known set of threat actors following a known playbook to spread FUD, 'flood the zone with shit', etc, for known reasons.
Any human effort at scale is going to be subject to some amount of threat noise trying to get in the way of signal. We overcome these with institutional antibodies, things like practices and protocols and checks and balances (hopefully made transparent). We try to lower the noise floor so that the quality stuff is encouraged and sticks around.
I feel like a lot of complaints fall back to unrealistic idealism because they don't have the insight on what the decision making apparatus is, where it is empowered and where it is limited, and how decisions were reached. That's a problem, but arguing that threats shouldn't be addressed is not the solution, because we already know how that plays out in institutions, communities, and societies. They fall apart.
We should be looking at this from a threat model perspective. That certain subjects, at certain times, are subject to coordinated threats in order to gain power to those coordinating them. This isn't about 'scientific consensus', this is a known set of threat actors following a known playbook to spread FUD, 'flood the zone with shit', etc, for known reasons.
Any human effort at scale is going to be subject to some amount of threat noise trying to get in the way of signal. We overcome these with institutional antibodies, things like practices and protocols and checks and balances (hopefully made transparent). We try to lower the noise floor so that the quality stuff is encouraged and sticks around.
I feel like a lot of complaints fall back to unrealistic idealism because they don't have the insight on what the decision making apparatus is, where it is empowered and where it is limited, and how decisions were reached. That's a problem, but arguing that threats shouldn't be addressed is not the solution, because we already know how that plays out in institutions, communities, and societies. They fall apart.