As the OP makes pretty clear, the amplification effect of the internet has made the problem worse than it used to be, so "traveled well before" is misleading at best.
This asymmetry has been written about many times - as bullshit, flooding the zone, sealioning, etc. What some call censorship is often just trying to make things symmetrical again, to give those who are trying to argue from facts a fighting chance. That's why such accusations are a staple among the people who peddle the misinformation in the first place, and also among people who are just trying to avoid accountability when they've always been perfectly free to say what they want. People need to learn what real censorship is, and stop throwing the term around any time they don't think they're getting the hearing or reaction they deserve.
> As the OP makes pretty clear, the amplification effect of the internet has made the problem worse than it used to be, so "traveled well before" is misleading at best.
Correct. What about our ability to ruin reputations? Hasn’t that amplified as well via the so-called Streisand effect?
You are advocating for censorship for practical reasons, but it is censorship at the end of the day.
What you’re saying is that it’s hard to battle misinformation, and this is true. What isn’t true is that muzzling misinformation is the only way to combat this problem, even if it seems like the easiest approach.
And if you want accountability, then censorship is the least effective approach in a democratic society; as you’ve hidden away what should be held to account.
> The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.