> I stated that we should come to a consensus on topics - not rely on intuition.

You did indeed, and I responded:

>> We should be striving to come to a consensus on topics

> Not me, not if we are lying to ourselves in the process. If something is literally unknown, it should be acknowledged thusly. We're not comfortable relying on pure intuition in science or programming, why do it in the rest of life if it isn't necessary? Shall we think logically and scientifically, as we're told, or shall we not? Pick a side.

> Disagreeing with the consensus should be encouraged, but it needs to be done with the facts (experimental results) - not just stating that something is unknown (a statement that can be applied to 99.9% of science if taken at face value).

Oh? Things that have had(!) a "conspiracy theory" label attached (by the media, the experts, etc) are regularly asserted to be False, here and elsewhere, with absolutely no requirement for facts or evidence. But asserting that something is unknown, which is the actual state of affairs, needs to be done with facts (which are not known, hence the epistemic status of unknown)?

> I have heard that, but my point was that QAnon is not a "typical" political group. Regardless of its founders (foreign actors, bored kids, whatever), there should be a heavy dose of skepticism when looking at their theories, especially when many of their theories have been debunked but are continued to be peddled.

I agree 100% with skepticism - but that's not my complaint. My complaint is that skepticism towards those who say (without evidence) that it "is X", or "its followers believe Y" seems to be ~not allowed, that they are accepted enthusiastically as False, just because they have had a label attached. This seems not too unlike how members of ethnic minority classes were described in the media in the not too distant past, also without appropriate accompanying evidence.

> It is, and that is a bad thing. Unfortunately, we need to do something to correct the amplification problem of social media. Now we can disagree on the extent of the role that private companies should play in this policing, but it should be illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theory - even virtually.

Agreed. But what do you think about two adjacent ideas:

1. Does it seem optimal that journalists seem to have an odd lack of interest in certain stories?

2. If "fake news" is really such a massive societal risk, does it seem at all odd that there is no initiative whatsoever to investigate some of the more pervasive stories and prove(!) then False, once and for all? Or, that there is no bi-partisan effort (or even discussion of such a thing in the mainstream) to develop a plan for teaching critical thinking and epistemology skills to the public? If this problem is genuinely so dangerous, why do we do nothing about it other than censorship (which can be used for both good and evil, which is not true of the other approaches)?

> The beauty of "save the children" is that it is impossible to call it out as coordinated propaganda without being accused of not caring about children. Of course I care about children. But I am also concerned that the upswell of social media was not natural.

The degree to which the public truly cares about children compared to how much they care about implementing broad censorship, and fast, seems a bit misbalanced to me. I suspect that there may actually be the possibility that the general public doesn't even think about such philosophical ideas, similar to how they don't seem to think much about other things like quantum mechanics, yak-herding, or 18th century art.

Does this seem possible?

> I am, but we as a society have always faced these dilemmas. Before social media, there were libel and slander laws that discouraged outright lies. With social media, however, there is almost nothing to gain from going after someone who posts slander. There is a fundamental problem when any random person can write whatever they dream of as fact and then amplify it to millions of people through social media.

Agreed. And it seems like the general consensus (in the general public and here on HN) of what we should do about this problem has arrived at censorship, as much as is required. And this consensus has been reached with no serious/honest debate, here or elsewhere. Each to his own, but I am very much "not cool" with this. But then perhaps I put too much faith in wisdom from times past - maybe censorship of non-sanctioned ideas, with no reasoned public debate, really is the optimum approach. I mean, who am I to disagree, right? Who do I even think I am!

> This site is one of the only places where these topics can still be discussed without devolving into flame wars. So thank you for that.

Likewise...a willingness to engage in dialogue on such matters is quite rare, so I do appreciate your efforts despite our (likely minor) differences, which is probably not at all reflected in my tone.