Kind of reminds me when one of the foremost mRNA researchers, Dr. Robert Malone was temporarily banned on LinkedIn regarding his views on the vaccine. While speaking at a JRE interview, he says later on after the ban, LinkedIn (probably after public backlash) sent him an apology letter, quoting they could not assemble a team (or they themselves were not) qualified enough to fact-check him. Let that sink in for a moment...
When did we turn to social media spaces to get our health facts from. Fact checking from big tech is the silliest thing normal people have embraced on the Internet. Kind of loony when you think of the historical context of the internet.
I also don't understand that position. If somebody doing research in a certain domain comes to talk about that domain, then whatever they say will be relevant. Even if ill-intentioned, they will know their stuff and come up with a valid critique which needs or needs not to be taken into consideration. Now if a neuro surgeon - even if genial and successful - talks about vaccines, there's already a serious chance the topic goes astray, and the further a person removed from field is the lower the trustworthiness of their comment. I know, there are exceptions to this rule, and everyone thinks they are that exception...
When did we turn to social media spaces to get our health facts from. Fact checking from big tech is the silliest thing normal people have embraced on the Internet. Kind of loony when you think of the historical context of the internet.