[sorethescore]

Nonsense, if you tolerate disinformation you get more disinformation. Countries that fail to address it will fall and the world will be worse off because of it. The right to free speech does not include the right to a free platform or free promotion.

[d110af5ccf]

It does include the right to access the public square though. And if a particular free platform has become a public square by virtue of size then I think it does include the right to access that platform.

Such platforms should probably not be permitted to promote in a general and unrestricted sense the content of particular speakers that make use of them. That's no better than clandestine government propaganda. An obvious wolf in sheep's clothing.

[thatsagreatcomm]

Who decides what's disinformation?

[yibg]

I hear this question posed a lot in this context, but we already done this now don't we? Someone (or ones) decides which laws are valid, which educational material to teach our kids etc. Are those not ok because some person or body of people have decided for the rest of society?

[PartiallyTyped]

This narrative has killed many republicans who feared getting vaccinated, and it will only kill more. One could argue that it is their own actions, but I am not keen on blaming people for their circumstances.

The answer is we decide what is disinformation through our institutions and the value we place on them. Your and I's opinion on certain matters should never weigh remotely as much as an expert's on a particular topic unless we are such experts.

We ought to measure the value of one's speech through the scrutiny it has to go through to be published at trusted channels.

[bastardoperator]

Agreed, disinformation is dangerous and it should be treated as such. Just because you say/write it doesn't mean I'm required to host it. Freedom to promote stupidity does not outweigh my right to unplug my microphone.