Those of us who live in the US enjoy free speech, which clearly allows types of speech that are considered misinformation. In order for a platform to censor speech that is otherwise legal, they must either do it out of principle (they simply don't like a certain kind of speech) or as a calculated business decision because it's what their customers want.

It turns out a significant number of people who support free speech also want their favorite platforms to not allow speech they don't like. The argument is "this is not free speech, it's misinformation and it's damaging." If there were valid scientific arguments proving that what we call misinformation is actually damaging, that would be a reasonable position. However, so far I have not seen anything that convinced me.

All I've heard are "just so" arguments akin to "TV/videogames cause violence." What if fake news do not change people's minds as much as it may appear? We tend to listen to viewpoints (fake or not) that confirm our beliefs. All the information confirming our beliefs is out there, cannot be removed from the internet, and we will gravitate towards it. If that is true, then we are paying a high price (asking platforms to police speech beyond the law) for little or no benefit.

Edit: downvoter, I would appreciate if it you could explain how you disagree with my comment.