I have no doubt that you are highly intelligent and well intentioned.

The scientific method is a system that promotes the free exchange of ideas and promotes the rigorous use of LOGIC to disprove falsifiable claims and refine existing hypotheses.

Injecting doubt, general skepticism, and even hare-brained hypotheses into the public discussion STRENGTHENS our critical assumptions.

Regarding "dangerous ideas", many people believe that Islamic ideology is a "dangerous idea".

Would you like to live in a world were all "dangerous ideas" were "canceled from the trending page"?

Many people feel threatened by ideas and beliefs they do not hold personally.

There is nothing to be afraid of.

As soon as someone starts to be afraid of ideas, they become actively anti-intellectual.

Some people believe in ghosts and horoscopes, others believe these are "dangerous ideas".

We currently live in a world (IRL) where you can "upvote" a show or movie or a news article by watching it (giving it your attention) and there are various measures to gauge how much attention a "story" is getting. People even have the option of "upvoting" a content creator by either buying their products or buying the products advertised adjacent to their "story".

Now imagine we lived in a world where you could "downvote" a show or movie or a news article that you considered "dangerous" or "inappropriate" by spending some of your energy or resources in order to reduce its visibility to others (or add some sort of prominent warning based on your whim). Imagine you could "downvote" a content creator directly by taking pending revenue out of their assignment and reassigning that same revenue into a pool that would go instead to those who received upvotes with the highest totals (TOP EARNERS).

Wouldn't this inevitably lead to a world were ONLY the most popular content creators could survive?

Wouldn't this inevitably lead to a world where the SAME "popular" content and the SAME "popular" creators would be given an unfair advantage by virtue of their ever-growing "upvote"/"downvote" power?

The more votes they get, the more control they have over the ATTENTION ECONOMY.

Imagine if the Catholic Church had successfully "downvoted" Galileo (or Martin Luther) for their "dangerous ideas".

The "solution" isn't to knock stuff of the trending page.

The "solution" is to teach people how to distinguish FACT from OPINION.

Engage in a rational discussion.

For Example,

There are only a very few FACTS (apodictic truths).

You do not know everything.

This is a FACT.

Everything you know was learned via SUBJECTIVE experience.

This is a FACT.

The sun showers the earth with radiation.

This is a FACT.

Clowns are creepy.

This is an OPINION.

The ancient Egyptians owned slaves.

This is a HYPOTHESIS based on compelling evidence.

SOURCE CONVO