Funny anecdote. I don't post on social media much, and I dislike all conspiracy theories that common sense can easily defeat (such as, nanobots in the vaccine. Really? And no one gets the idea to check what's contained within and every government in the world would silence the media reporting on it, if it was ever true?). I'm also vaccinated, but I did intentionally wait a couple months before getting it.
I did learn that one of the better known fact checking websites, Reuters, has a chairman (and previously director) that is also in the board of directors at Pfizer.
Regardless of those fact checks being correct or not, surely a journalistic conflict of interest is obvious here, and should be discarded on principle alone.
So, a "fact checking journalist" (
https://twitter.com/erinbiba ) writing for different editorials and fact checkers, pronouns in bio, tweeted something about anti vaxxers making fact checkers fact-check really dumb stuff, and someone replied "and then they tell you the rich people bought the fact checkers" or something along those lines.
Since I just learned of that conflict of interest existing for Reuters and Pfizer, I did respond to that, from my phone and told them that they can look it up themselves on the official Pfizer website, "just google pfizer james c. smith". I didn't post the link because I was on the phone when tweeting. Now, I get that many conspiracy theorists will tell you to "just do your own research" instead of posting links, but I also clearly laid out that I'm not referring to any dubious website, but Pfizer themselves, and how to find the correct page.
I got blocked by that "journalist", which is funny to me, since I am just some random software engineer. It's not my job to check facts. It's hers though.
Here's the source btw:
Pfizer's website
Also very bad move by Google.
I'm all for spreading knowledge and debunking anti vax bullshit, but censorship is not the answer and just undermines the possibility of discussion. Anti vaxxers and their communities will continue spreading their bullshit on other channels, without any sort of public awareness. It will just divide people more. The problem isn't per se banning anti vax, but the door this opens. Personally I believe there is a difference between wanting to wait with the vaccination and following lockdown rules and actual anti vax rhetoric. But who gets to decide what is considered anti vax? Some random moderators on YouTube that bring their bullshit agenda into this, relying on the rules backing them up to further spread their mind virus.
We all know there is plenty of people buying into the mindset that if you don't get vaccinated, you kill people. What a joke. We even have some posters here writing down exactly that. Are we really fine with giving people with this level of clouded ability of judgement power over us?
Previous rules at YouTube haven't aimed at political mindsets of convictions, there was no ill intent involved if a channel mistakenly received a strike. There can be now though.
(Sorry for responding to you btw)
