Hi JMC nice to see you here.
Gets right to the nub of the matter. What you suggest (flagging up as ‘controversial’ rather than deleting) might be better than what we end up with, the way things are going - but this would also imply that genuine public discourse has such has largely given up the ghost, or is choosing salvage mode to stave off full oblivion.
The article is written from a fixed viewpoint; that official sources are reliable and safe, while other views are misleading, false and harmful. A system of elevation vs negatively flagging as controversial, based on preconceived idea of the source, would create and perpetuate a crudely loaded system of public discussion. It’s a system we already have in most media-controlled discourse; so the question really is should the private system replace the public one.
The ‘controversy’ attached to alternative views usually arises from the reaction to them; ie shouting down, smearing (as extreme, or by lizard-type references) or suppression. This is in direct contrast to the supposed aim of public discourse. Rather than being related to truth (as PP notes), the reason for the reaction is often that the alternative views can not be combatted by argument, reason or science because the existing ‘reliable’ evidence is somewhere between biased and largely or even wholly bogus; and that any reasonable airing of the true nature of the allegedly ‘reliable evidence’ would be too revealing of this state of affairs. I would also agree with PP that the successful burying of the early hydroxychloroquine treatement by bogus corporate ‘science’ is a prime example.
That public and mainstream discourse is both minded and numerically empowered to start from such a loaded position (which is a bit like putting alternative views in stocks and chains) shows that the domination of dialogue by vested interests in ‘science’ has existed for a long time previously. This has led to unjustified levels of public trust in official science and a belief that if people work in, or represent ‘science’ that their actions and beliefs are necessarily logical or scientific and not subject to sway by professional and peer group pressure (pressure which according to this belief should not exist anyway).
While the debate goes on about ‘harmful views’, attention is deflected from the corporate influence on what is sold as ‘science’ and ‘scientific discourse’, which is the real problem. It always has been - but when doctors during a pandemic are being shut down en masse for pointing to evidence of beneficial treatments, and unproven remedies are being foisted on the population, the situation regarding the appropriation of (now) public discourse by corporate and political interests has become urgent.
A relevant aside (I didn’t know where to put this but it’s also worth pointing out); the severity of the Covid-19 epidemic has been much higher in the same countries who control or dominate the ‘science’ - rich western democracies, who have much higher Covid-19 death rates than less affluent countries, for whom pharmaceutical companies making money out of the crisis wasn’t an option and who by and large got on with ordinary treatments. By the looks of things, the actions of the governments most keen to suppress dissent have led to more deaths than the virus itself. I realize this is a very big issue on its own and needs its own discussion, but relevant I think. Just to illustrate the point: a couple of months back I calculated that two thirds of the world Covid-19 deaths came from countries totalling 7% of the world population. These included the US, UK, France, Spain - countries that should be listening more than pronouncing, but who were instead dominating western discourse on Covid-19.
