Probably all of us would be against censoring the verbal communications between individuals in our society. Such communication is full of untruths and agenda-driven lies. Right now parents and teachers the world over are propagating untruths to children. Workplace discussions are happening around watercoolers where unscientific nonsense is spreading. We just accept that this space of human interaction is the noise floor of our civilization, and maybe even appreciate the agency that this gives us.
With the spread of the internet, that same communication is happening online. It being online is literally the only difference. Let the noise flow, I say, and from it can both objective and social truths arise. To do anything else doesn't give us truth anymore than did restricting interpersonal speech in certain unpleasant regimes throughout history.
I believe if we had had a system in place to censor unscientific information regarding climate change, we would not be in as deep shit as we are now. It's a very strong argument for moderating what can and cannot be said publicly, as the negative consequences will be felt dearly by many.
Obviously there are problems with censorship, but I just want to point out that nothing about this is as clear cut as you would like to believe.
i absolutely agree that the spread of some messages should be limited, but outright censorship risks removing the wrong messages, and gets in the way of a critical discussion.
FTFY