My article wasn't about whether Steve Kirsch has the right to moderate his own platforms. He absolutely does. It was about whether the public presentation of those platforms is consistent with the principle of open scientific debate that he frequently advocates.
Several of your points are personal characterizations of my behavior, for example, calling me a troll, alleging I spammed comments, or stating I used fake accounts. Those are serious claims. If they're going to be presented as facts rather than opinions, they should be supported with evidence. Challenging in the comment section is not trolling simply because you don't like the information presented.
More importantly, they don't address the central question: Can knowledgeable critics consistently challenge Steve Kirsch's conclusions without eventually being removed or blocked?
You argue the answer is yes. Others report a different experience. That difference is precisely why transparency matters.
Whether Steve is busy, receives thousands of comments, or develops software doesn't change the underlying principle. Scientific ideas are strengthened by engaging substantive criticism, not by evaluating critics' motives.
If my arguments are incorrect, I welcome specific rebuttals to the evidence and reasoning presented in my articles. That's the kind of discussion science depends on.
Since you are a Kirsch moderator and could only resort to troll accusations, therefore blocking me, you will be blocked here. Tit for tat. If you wish to actually discuss the facts, let me know, and I will unblock you. You aren't going to play the same game here
Deflection. When one gets censored, you need to get your own side of the story in.
You are unable to cite any evidence and only have your irrelevant argument. If you cannot challenge me, refrain from posting on my Substack. I only debate facts and science, not irrelevant garbage,
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
My article wasn't about whether Steve Kirsch has the right to moderate his own platforms. He absolutely does. It was about whether the public presentation of those platforms is consistent with the principle of open scientific debate that he frequently advocates.
Several of your points are personal characterizations of my behavior, for example, calling me a troll, alleging I spammed comments, or stating I used fake accounts. Those are serious claims. If they're going to be presented as facts rather than opinions, they should be supported with evidence. Challenging in the comment section is not trolling simply because you don't like the information presented.
More importantly, they don't address the central question: Can knowledgeable critics consistently challenge Steve Kirsch's conclusions without eventually being removed or blocked?
You argue the answer is yes. Others report a different experience. That difference is precisely why transparency matters.
Whether Steve is busy, receives thousands of comments, or develops software doesn't change the underlying principle. Scientific ideas are strengthened by engaging substantive criticism, not by evaluating critics' motives.
If my arguments are incorrect, I welcome specific rebuttals to the evidence and reasoning presented in my articles. That's the kind of discussion science depends on.
Since you are a Kirsch moderator and could only resort to troll accusations, therefore blocking me, you will be blocked here. Tit for tat. If you wish to actually discuss the facts, let me know, and I will unblock you. You aren't going to play the same game here
Deflection. When one gets censored, you need to get your own side of the story in.
You are unable to cite any evidence and only have your irrelevant argument. If you cannot challenge me, refrain from posting on my Substack. I only debate facts and science, not irrelevant garbage,