You're missing the point. Who gets to determine what is 'misinformation?' I think you'll find if you look back a year or so it was the government representatives and 'MSM' defining it, not leading scientists (some of which have since been 'discredited' because they supposedly suddenly turned to nuttiness).
And little seems said, but I can't help notice the quite communist behaviour to demand the state mandate 'choices' for the populance wholesale 'for the greater good.' Especially knowing the vaccines don't stop the virus or the spread.
Protecting information is not censorship, and your example highlights an incredible ignorance of what censorship (which is a government tool the first amendment is specifically designed around) actually is.
Oh I understand the point completely. A quick look at your comment history says everything (eg [1][2]). You have, for whatever reason, fallen down the of misinformation and propaganda that turns you into an anti-vaxxer and you've lost any objectivity or any ability to reason about the information you receive the supports or contradicts your view. If it supports your view, it's correct. If it doesn't, it isn't. The reasons for this can vary: they're hiding things, they're lying, they're misunderstanding, they've been bought by Big Pharma, they're trying to control you, whatever. I honestly don't care.
But what I do know (as evidenced by your history) that having reached that conclusion you now work backwards. You're against "censorship" of misinformation because that misinformation contradicts your anti-vaxxer beliefs and therefore it's bad. I'd bet money if we were talking about censoring information that showed vaccines are safe and work you'd have a completely different view.
Your right to promulgate propaganda isn't being violated here. Platforms just aren't required to distribute it and use their judgement about what they want on their platform.
See that's the thing, it's so easy to just say 'oh an anti-vaxxer' with a smirk and not think more. But I have done a lot of research and informing myself over time and things very much don't add up. Yes the vaccines do have some efficacy and effect for the elderly, but beyond that the research doesn't support it, unless you just listen to the hand-picked 'experts' the media chooses.
The data doesn't lie. Were you aware Pfizer finished their phase 3 trial after 3 months partly because 97% of the control group got vaccinated? Is that good science?
Are you aware many countries count a covid death as any death within 30 days of a covid diagnosis?
Are you aware in the US that doctors and hospitals receive compensation specifically for recording a covid case but not for other illnesses?
Are you aware that in the UK, out of 170K+ deaths, less than 100 were under the age of 20, yet vaccines are pushed to all with a higher side effect profile in the young?
Are you aware that in Pfizer's presentation for approval of their vaccine for under 12's that they didn't even demonstrate a clinical outcome?
Did you see Bourla himself say two doses do nothing against Omicron, three 'a little,' and yet they're still being pushed/mandated?
And look at Ivermectin. The response has constantly been 'more research needed' yet no big investment, even though the investment in the vaccine was unprecedented. Why wouldn't masses of funds and research be put towards it if it looked promising (which a number of studies, though not all, showed).
I change my mind if the evidence and data are strong. I don't sent the vaccine does work to an extent for specific groups, but you have to work really hard to not see massive problems with things like mandates and vaccinating kids based on the data. Locking down seems to have worked best, but that's political suicide now so 'just get more jabs' that don't stop spread or hospitalisation is the go...
What's the objective reality on the lab leak theory? Effectiveness of cloth masks? Has that objective reality changed? Has the perception of that objective reality changed? Where do you get your objective reality from and how is it infallible?
We don't know, but what we do know is that the truth of the lab leak theory is irrelevant to whether we should stop the virus, and is primarily only mentioned as a distraction from that.
Actually the interesting part of that theory being true or not is Fauci funding gain of function research in those labs through Peter Danszak (i.e. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/nih-took-scientists... - gets worse the more recent findings you come across) and the unwavering support the NIH have him. Certainly raises strong questions regardless of your starting position.
And little seems said, but I can't help notice the quite communist behaviour to demand the state mandate 'choices' for the populance wholesale 'for the greater good.' Especially knowing the vaccines don't stop the virus or the spread.
Protecting information is not censorship, and your example highlights an incredible ignorance of what censorship (which is a government tool the first amendment is specifically designed around) actually is.