The author mentions the Royal Society who link misinformation with consensus: "Scientific misinformation is defined as information which is presented as factually true but directly counters, or is refuted by, established scientific consensus" [0]. Galileo!

Google has a similar consensus mindset for medical content: "We don't allow content that contradicts or runs contrary to scientific or medical consensus and evidence-based best practices." [1]

[0] https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/online-infor... [1] https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/10622781

Anyone who claims fact checking is the same thing as censorship has an agenda, and that agenda is to be able to disseminate non-factual information.

I don't think people who make these arguments should have their arguments given weight.

> It should be noted that there has been some confusion over the past few years because people think that the first amendment protects people’s freedom of speech anywhere. It actually only protects your freedom of speech from the government

Yes, many people believe the first amendment protects and creates consequences free free speech between individuals and private sector businesses. Some even double down on this misunderstanding by saying it should, and that there is a philosophical free speech they want to employ. I consider this a fan fiction.

I’m pretty content using people’s fan fiction version of private sector free speech against them.

It just means I have a better grip on reality than they do. It means they are divorced from the processes of consensus in our reality, and I can leverage the existing system more cunningly. Despite the popularity of their misunderstanding of free speech, their fan fiction version of it has no consensus and cannot reach any threshold to alter reality in their favor.