1. Lots of correct scientific ideas were considered outright heretical (not just merely fringe), prior to mainstream acceptance. If you exclude 'fringe' ideas, you exclude the bad ones and the good ones.
2. People who get duped will simply stop listening. Example: This week I was duped by a youtuber, and will never rely on that source again [1].
Come back to me when Nature censors something for ideological reasons.
Someone better tell Bill Nye and Niel.
That may have been my own fault - I don't remember enough to know.
Just saying.
I would be genuinely surprised to find this hasn't already happened.
I'd say we can even call for it to no longer be published. And if it can be shown to actively cause significant harm the legal system can respond.
To refute sloppy analysis, the sloppy analysis must be published and available.
Science follows the scientific method. Pseudoscience, definitionally, is anything that identifies as science but does not follow the scientific method. A study is not needed to demonstrate that not following the scientific method lessens the usage of the scientific method. No one would bother peer reviewing or publishing trivial work. It is a waste of time.
Again, you're treating this as a given when it is anything but. Sure, pseudoscience means you're not doing science, but people promoting pseudoscience weren't necessarily going to being doing science instead / the people listening to them wouldn't necessarily be listening to science instead. In other words, science and pseudoscience are not a zero-sum game. In fact, the existence / publication of pseudoscience could actually galvanize "real" scientists to do more work than they otherwise would've to prove things scientifically. Not saying this is the case, but again, your assertion is far from a given.
Also, although we like to pretend that "science" is some concrete ideal, it is really not. For example, I mainly consider things to be scientific in line with Karl Popper's thinking re: falsifiability, which would cause me to lump a lot of "science" done today in the "not super sciency" category alongside some of the more clearly bunk pseudoscience.
If it's so widely debunked then why do you care? Should be easy to shoot down on a debate. Oh and you don't have to listen.
I don't think I'd put this situation in the same bucket as cancel culture. The spread of Covid misinformation, especially anti-vaccination stuff, has a provable impact on the healthcare system which forces our governments to ask us to endure more restrictions than would be necessary if vaccine hesitancy wasn't a thing.
People like Rogan are sitting there complaining about government overreach while exacerbating the problem by spreading misinformation. As the distributor I think Spotify has an obligation to put a stop to it. I'm not saying he should be cancelled, but they need to tell him to get back to entertaining and to leave the medical advice to the experts in that field.
It's exactly this kind of misinformation that leads to people calling for censorship. You honestly think if there was MORE censorship there would be LESS vaccine hesitancy and the government would be implementing LESS mandates? That's dillusional and you have no evidence of it.
Censorship has a provable impact on people's trust. If you censor competing viewpoints then guess what? I'm less likely to believe yours. The only way I believe anything is if competing viewpoints are allowed. If they aren't then I don't believe you can defend your viewpoint. I don't just blindly trust anybody. You have to show evidence and prove yourself.