Rogan was a proactive person conducting open research into the world around him. When proactive people investigate things and share their findings, it now only takes a few to dislike the findings, fuss, and have the findings removed.
To those that support this, I have 4 questions:
1. Is disincentivising sharing knowledge really good for the world?
2. Is it reasonable to expect 100% of inquiries be 100% accurate on the very first attempt?
3. Is it efficient for society to repeat the same research many times since previous investigations are scrubbed from public record?
4. Is it healthy for public discourse to be made less diverse and only concern 'safe' topics?
Rogan was a proactive person conducting open research into the world around him. When proactive people investigate things and share their findings, it now only takes a few to dislike the findings, fuss, and have the findings removed.
To those that support this, I have 4 questions:
1. Is disincentivising sharing knowledge really good for the world?
2. Is it reasonable to expect 100% of inquiries be 100% accurate on the very first attempt?
3. Is it efficient for society to repeat the same research many times since previous investigations are scrubbed from public record?
4. Is it healthy for public discourse to be made less diverse and only concern 'safe' topics?