We've seen what several decades of totally unregulated broadcasting have done, to the detriment of our society - without well-funded expert guidance, conspiracy theories and extremism run rampant. Platforms must be restricted to those who prove they can use them appropriately.
Have you payed attention to mainstream journalism over the past couple decades? The material they cover and the framing with which they do so reflects an understanding not any better than the one you attribute to independent journalists, to say nothing of an expectation that the audience is even less capable of understanding. Have you never seen a mainstream news channel cover an event that you personally witnessed, and imply or outright state that the event happened differently than what you saw with your own eyes? Have you never witnessed someone interviewed, and then later seen the broadcast, edited interview, implying something else than what was originally stated for the editing done?
Who decides who the correct experts are? Who decides a person can responsibly use a platform?
It's plainly apparent they were just salivating, waiting and hoping (some might say inciting) that something violent would happen, and yet the events "turned out to be peaceful and unremarkable." I'm sure there was profound disappointment in the major newsrooms that day.
Okay, you probably are not opposed to democracy. But if not, why not? If the people are too stupid to choose to consume good journalism and ignore bad journalism, how can they be considered wise enough to elect good legislators instead of bad ones?
The US system of government is predicated on having a populace that is sufficiently intelligent, prudent, and moral that it will not give in to mob excess. If we the people no longer possess that sort of character, restricting the speech of said people will not be sufficient to solve the problem. A full dictatorship will be the only solution.
Your point about the character of the people is a good one. But if you jettison free speech, you have jettisoned the entirety of democratic government with it.
Our democratic norms are intended to filter that irrationality into something more functional - though the election of a certain someone I don't feel like naming at the moment shows those norms aren't perfect. I expect quite a few people are thinking very hard about how to make sure none of this ever happens again.
Nevertheless, the ideal of representative democracy relies on experts.
Either way, once it is decided by all who have the practical ability to distribute information to large numbers of people that only "correct" viewpoints approved by "experts" may be published, you're a short step away from living in a single-party state.
This being a wonderful example of the right-wing propaganda so prominent (though I won't say universal) in this mess. Cause a problem, then blame others for it.
We've all had more than enough of correcting it at every turn. Why not do something about that?
Right before a literally historic housing market crash occurred, that then became an enormous stock market crash.
How much more of an expert would you want than Hank Paulson, who added billions of value to Goldman Sachs bottom line, who he himself made $1bn working there, and who had been in the financial industry for 30+ years at the time, and who was the Secretary of the Treasury?
What kind of "expertise" should he have had in your perfect utopia?
I should remind you that Paulson was indeed vetted by regulators, other experts, and Congress, and was widely considered a great choice as SecTres.
We see how that worked out.
An autistic medical doctor predicted the housing market crash 3 years before Paulson made that statement, so as far as I can see, so much for your so-called experts. In fact, I think if you'll try less to defer to experts and more to defer to history, you'll find a very long list of people who were held in the highest esteem who continually got shit wrong, and very very few who got it right.
Oh, I found it, the satire giveaway was at the end.