> fewer people engage in the discussion or share the information
More like fewer people engage in the discussion or share the information _where those researchers are looking_.
In reality, you're going to push people off Twitter and onto Gab, Parler, and Stormfront.
You can cite all the research you want. I've seen these effects of censorship first hand. Just makes matters way worse. If you believe all these people with different opinions are simply stupid, you're going to have a bad time. And, in my experience, such statements are a good proxy for middling intelligence on the part of the speaker.
On the contrary, banning people makes people seek out their narrative even more.
This idea that people aren't smart enough to make their own decisions and need you to spoon feed them the "right" information is the real problem here.
> If you say wait a second, but one of those is a fact about the world and the other is an insane conspiracy theory, then to them you're now a censor, an opponent of Free Speech.
No, if you remove the video from YouTube on the grounds of "removing false information" you're a censor. This is what has happened to e.g. Alex Jones, Milo, and many others for example.
By all means, leave a comment denouncing their idiocy. Make a response video showing why they're wrong. Whatever. But don't remove the video FFS. It just makes them believe it more.
You said it yourself: "the other is an insane conspiracy theory". That's obvious to you, and its obvious to 99% of people. So why do you feel the need to remove it?
Is it really that they don't want people to criticize their bullshit?
Or is it that they don't want their bullshit to be censored off the face of the planet? Whether or not we agree with their views, should they not be able to express themselves, and how they truly feel?
Imagine if your criticism of their viewpoints was being censored instead, so they got to speak un-opposed and un-criticized.
I constantly hear that people should "be themselves", and "should not be made ashamed of who they are". It appears this advice falls down when the people aren't who we want them to be, or hold views we consider "wrong".
If I hate a specific ethnic group, how else do you expect me to change, if not through sharing my views and then being challenged on those views. If you censor such a person, would you not then further radicalize them?
More like fewer people engage in the discussion or share the information _where those researchers are looking_.
In reality, you're going to push people off Twitter and onto Gab, Parler, and Stormfront.
You can cite all the research you want. I've seen these effects of censorship first hand. Just makes matters way worse. If you believe all these people with different opinions are simply stupid, you're going to have a bad time. And, in my experience, such statements are a good proxy for middling intelligence on the part of the speaker.