You make it more difficult than it has to be. As far as I’m concerned, not a single country worldwide lives by standards of absolute freedom of speech. So we know that distinction is indeed possible. The best example is German law towards holocaust denial. We know for a fact that it happened. So denying the holocaust is a crime. It’s that simple. And in the same way, we know that mRNA based vaccinations aren’t a scheme to kill millions of people worldwide. So claiming this shit, should be followed by a swift ban from whatever platform that nonsense got spouted on. And yes, I’m fully aware that grey areas exist. They need to be accounted for. Something courts worldwide do every single day. So clear cases get treated like that. Less clear cases get treated accordingly and so on.
To me, platforms like Twitter, but also the caf here for example, are similar to publishers of literature and so on. They have a clear responsibility to moderate and regulate their platform. Otherwise the law can step in. So I don’t really see the issue. We’re already doing it every day. It’s the reason you can’t spell out certain words on here. And I’m very sure claiming mRNA vaccines are destroying the world, despite all evidence to the contrary, will get you banned here as well. Same if I were to make fraudulent claims about you as a person. I’m sure you’d happily see the caf intervene in such cases.