Why? Is the implicit assumption here that people are too stupid or irresponsible to handle hearing information & coming to their own conclusion on it?
This seems like a distressingly common viewpoint nowadays...
At risk of being flippant, have you been on Facebook lately at all in the past 5-6 years?
This is a very condescending and authoritarian position that I would hope those of us who care about free discourse would eschew.
I'm not saying that.
"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it."
Is free discourse about being free from consequences? Is it about equal representation/distribution? I am curious about ideological harm when compared to things like offering legal or medical advice.
What does a private company/platform have to do with censorship? Why does a private company/platform need to represent and publish all ideological viewpoints, and what is that company’s responsibility to free discourse?
Perhaps you were just helping my case out by demonstrating how easily people sometimes confuse even relatively accessible topics like the difference between stupidity and ignorance?