hypochondriac

That's quite a specific thing to mention. Who supports those two then?

Last year the media team were told not to use Bertrand in any promo material so they were expecting him to leave.

People who always talk about Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins.

Hence why I said "thus far" and "great person."

I fail to see how anyone could look at his contribution thus far and not think he was a great person to bring in.

Quite a significant number aren't necessarily anti vaxxers but are anti this particular vaccine due to the short amount of time it has had to be developed.

One person's unfounded opinion is another person's reasonable view. My point is that it's unrealistic to expect opinions to be policed on the Internet. The sheer volume of moderating that would require virtually in real time inevitably means that you'd have to employ machine learning which would err on the side of caution and end up with the mass stifling of opinion that strays from a mainstream narrative.

Absolutely. I speak from experience also having a rational and intelligent friend who is an anti vaxer. They will just not listen to reason.

I think a higher number than you think will.

Again, that ignores the risks for those people who are unable to have a vaccine. I don't want censorship but what I do want is wider awareness that if enough people refuse the vaccine it will undoubtedly cost lives.

But that's an absurd standard. How on earth will you police everyone on the Internet to such a degree that you can say with confidence that every person will not ever be influenced by misinformation? It's like tackling coronavirus by welding everyone in individual rooms.

It's not about them trying, there are demands that they are held legally responsible for everything written on the platform. That means there's no room for nuance at all and things will be mass blocked.

What if there are links to an article or a video? Does that need to be fact checked and validated before it's removed?

Who decides if it's true? Who decides if it's based on bs? Bearing in mind this all has to be done in real time to stop any spread.

Haven't there been news stories like that for literally decades that predate the Internet?

Who decides what's worthy of a ban and what's allowed to stay up? Is any criticism of a vaccine or vaccine process no matter how mild worthy of a ban?

From what I've read, how many people are offered the vaccine is going to depend on how much immunity it gives you. If its a one and done type deal then that's going to be different from if you need regular top ups.

Think the problem though is that if enough people have that mindset then it's going to cause real problems for cancer sufferers, people with immune diseases, newborns etc who can't get vaccinated even if they wanted to.

I think posting something factually inaccurate and as egregious asnyourbexamplenshould either be challenged or possibly deleted. There's a whole load of content around anti vaccinations and a blanket ban on all of it without discussion would be wrong. People who are anti vaccine are generally quite hard of thinking though.

There's a lot of truth in that too. I'm not sure that's classified as ignorance though, if anything the danger is information overload where it becomes difficult to discern facts from fiction. I also see that there are calls for social media companies to ban anti vax stuff. Personally I think that's a really bad idea. Banning thing will just fuel a justified sense of grievance and won't eradicate these views. They need robust rebuttals not censorship.

Not sure why mobile phones limit intelligence. If anything it has expanded knowledge as long as you are aware of the pitfalls of an echo chamber and use a range of sources. I think you'd find that general ignorance was probably a fair bit higher about certain matters a few decades ago.

I know football is all about different opinions, but I don't understand how you couldn't have looked at Theo running directly at players and thought "that's exactly what we've been missing for ages."

Have you been drinking?

There's a number you could point to (Clarke gave the example of Asians in It) but lets go for an obvious one and say sprinters.