You're attacking a strawman here. Nothing that was marked as misinformation was about the economic effects of lockdowns. If those effects concern you, you should be concerned with vaccine misinformation prolonging lockdowns, whether those lockdowns are government-enforced or due to individuals concerned about risk.
>If you'd asked people two years ago what they thought about the idea of locking the whole country down indefinitely for a virus with a 99% survival rate (and over 99.9% for people under 50), the vast majority would have said it's a crazy idea.
>Calling getting vaccines and wearing masks indoors "locking the whole country down indefinitely" is definitely hyperbolic.
You can say that not everything is still locked down (some stuff still is), but don't pretend like 6 months ago you would have been against the lockdowns that actually happened.
Once again, don't pretend that lockdowns is what the argument is about. That is a straw man. It is about whether companies should be obligated to spread misinformation about vaccines and diseases without getting to mark that as misinformation — they aren't. It is about whether that "infantilization" of the users of the platform is new — it isn't.
No, it isn't. Both you and logicchains keep trying to make the discussion about that, but that has nothing to do with whether posts should be marked as misinformation because people ignore common sense.
