Sunstein raises an important criticism of the "free market of ideas" argument:
> No one should anyone doubt that for some falsehoods, the marketplace works exceedingly poorly; it can be the problem, not the solution, perhaps especially online. Far from being the best test of truth, the marketplace ensures that many people accept falsehoods, or that they take mere fragments of lives, or small events, as representative of some alarming or despicable whole. Behavioral science makes this point entirely clear.
Many people recognize the benefits of (1) well-functioning markets and (b) freedom of speech. However, from this, one should not assume that their combination is necessarily wise. Put another way, one should not automatically assume that existing markets (whether it be newspapers, social media, and so on) are effective ways at promoting beneficial freedom of speech in the context of a democracy.
> No one should anyone doubt that for some falsehoods, the marketplace works exceedingly poorly; it can be the problem, not the solution, perhaps especially online. Far from being the best test of truth, the marketplace ensures that many people accept falsehoods, or that they take mere fragments of lives, or small events, as representative of some alarming or despicable whole. Behavioral science makes this point entirely clear.
Many people recognize the benefits of (1) well-functioning markets and (b) freedom of speech. However, from this, one should not assume that their combination is necessarily wise. Put another way, one should not automatically assume that existing markets (whether it be newspapers, social media, and so on) are effective ways at promoting beneficial freedom of speech in the context of a democracy.