>>13887537But this is actually objectively false, and there is decades of data, including game theoretic modeling, network models, and real world data from a variety of empirical fields including criminology, public health, and foreign policy, all of which indicates that harsh legal penalties, the use of force, and threats of fines or imprisonment are not effective methods to increase compliance or support for public policies. This is why the "War on Drugs" literally resulted in an increase in drug use. This is why the "War on Crime" literally resulted in an increase in inner city crime rates and gang violence. This is why the "War on Terror" has only resulted in more instability and violence in the middle east.
You can't use threats and intimidation to increase popular support and compliance for a political policy. You can't censor and "deplatform" your way out of disinformation. Again, this isn't my opinion. This is all objectively true, and I can provide you sources if you'd like, because I have indeed studied this topic, but I imagine you aren't interested, and even if you looked at the data, it wouldn't change your opinion about censorship or deplatforming, because you're just a partisan anti-science SJW who cares more about enforcing you woke authoritarian neoliberal view of the world. In fact, there is literally an entire field of literature on this topic, called opinion dynamics, and these sorts of results are typical. Pic related is just one recent example, not necessarily directly related to COVID, but this is the gist of these sort of results. You can also find similar findings in the public policy literature, in the form of debates about so-called coercive vs. cooperative policy making.
If you actually cared about "the science" and what would actually be a more effective strategy to achieve the public health practices you want, then you would not support censorship and deplatforming, but rather public dialogue and education.
