A literal, and not uncharitable reading of your argument is that you arguing this point, on this forum, on the internet, is merely a participation and destabilization of truth.
Some of the details around how best to protect freedom of speech seem complex. That it is either an absolute ideal or near enough, seems rather obvious to many.
One thing you can always count on is some portion of people who, when their ideas and values are status quo, will argue for undermining speech in some way. I suppose it's a natural enough of a thought. Some people, it seems, would much prefer a world where they constantly preach to the choir (regardless of how mind-numbing that would be).
Oh yes, playing the game risks making it worse. But you can't not play, because otherwise others - you know, the people who are wrong on the internet - get to drown everyone in their information instead.
Some of the details around how best to protect freedom of speech seem complex. That it is either an absolute ideal or near enough, seems rather obvious to many.
One thing you can always count on is some portion of people who, when their ideas and values are status quo, will argue for undermining speech in some way. I suppose it's a natural enough of a thought. Some people, it seems, would much prefer a world where they constantly preach to the choir (regardless of how mind-numbing that would be).