> Who defines what speech is harmful or wrong?
So you've proven the point that there is debate to be had on these matters.
Exactly what tobacco company execs said when they denied the links between smoking and cancer and other diseases.
Exactly as the climate-change denialists say when they delay and distract from efforts to address global warming.
Spreading doubt, deflecting criticism, and diverting attention are right out of the playbook for bad-faith actors.
What are we going to do to stop them?
That's what we're doing now: it's a neoliberal "free market" and the acolytes of the Chicago School tell us that the incentives of capital will eventually lead to the best possible outcome because rational actors will make perfect choices with complete information.