I'm not sure why you're quoting me here. My argument is that the assumption that societies which suppress truth end badly may be valid, but "covid-19 5g lizard people" is so far outside the realm of what is possibly true that it isn't relevant to such arguments.

You can socially suppress the obviously wrong without any danger. The marketplace of ideas doesn't need to make an effort to hold on to cranks.

The exchange reads like textbook example of broadbrushing. Somebody raised concerns about negative long term effects of censorship, your reply accused them personally of believing that 'Covid-19 is caused by 5-g towers'. They never even mentioned Covid19 or 5G.

> Are you saying that the truth is "Covid-19 is caused by 5-g towers"?

vs. a reformulation, to capture your stated intent:

> Are you saying that we should allow the circulation of obviously wrong ideas like "Covid-19 is caused by 5-g towers"?

Just because some of the 'Covid19 is caused by 5G towers' crowd also believes censorship is a bad idea, we can't infer that everyone / a majority of people that believe censorship is a bad idea are also believing 'Covid19 is caused by 5G towers'. Alas, our brains are very prone to this kind of elementary logic error, which makes the broadbrushing mechanism so powerful.

> Just because some of the 'Covid19 is caused by 5G towers' crowd also believes censorship is a bad idea, we can't infer that everyone / a majority of people that believe censorship is a bad idea are also believing 'Covid19 is caused by 5G towers'.

I, personally, don't see how this leap in logic is implied, and it certainly wasn't intended. Thanks for the explanation, unfortunately I can't change the original post.

Hopefully it's clear that that wasn't my intent. To be a bit defensive though:

> your reply accused them personally of believing that 'Covid-19 is caused by 5-g towers'. They never even mentioned Covid19 or 5G.

No, I didn't. I asked them a very pointed question that forces them to either take on a ridiculous position or to confront a flaw in their line of reasoning. I find this to be a valid strategy when discussing with people. I certainly don't believe that the person I responded to thinks 5g causes Covid. I think basically no one believes that. Hence why I thought that the question would be interpreted as I intended: that there's a difference between censoring "truth" and "untruth". This was apparently missed.

Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to reflect and explain!