Consider another example, if you were out drinking and someone took your keys and refused to give them back so you could drive home while intoxicated, I'd consider that morally justifiable.
That’s a little different as I am under the influence of a known, measurable substance with known, measurable impairments it induces. I basically can’t exercise ANY judgment. Not just driving.
Yes I understand that someone indoctrinated/obsessed with conspiracy theories can quite literally not be able to get out of that orbit without external intervention, but it’s harder to quantify and it’s harder to draw the line on where and when it’s appropriate to declare someone unfit to set their own media consumption habits.
We’d also have to clearly define what does and doesn’t contribute to the problem, which would vary from person to person. That is definitely not a straightforward delineation. Especially when the person in question doesn’t agree at all.
While there’s perhaps a “clear and present danger” distinction, I think this analogy is a good one because we are talking about similar interventions: nonviolent, easily overcome. No one’s gonna die from taking a cab home or missing out on the latest conspiracy theory.
No one is going to die if I take their phone away from them once a day and monitor everybody who calls and texts them. I don’t think that’s really a good bar.
