>

Ya, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does.  My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying.
It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.
Just look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.
Carlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, "I never said that I believed the election was rigged." And that's true. 
So what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, "A lot of people are saying..."which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.
And maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, "Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying."
You might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, "Wow, he really does do that." and the seed of doubt begins to grow. >

My favorite was things like
Headline

"Trump is a Racist"

Article

A guy named Bob called Trump a racist.

This way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly  legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said >

Well that was Trump's mo. "Plenty of people are saying it" was his mantra. >

It's a fallacious no matter who is doing it. >

Depends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism. >

There's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like "many people are saying" or "some people believe."
The first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Usually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la "two people familiar with Apple's plans," and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.
Granted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow. >


There's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like "many people are saying" or "some people believe."

As you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was "some guy named Bob said ..." That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. 

it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter?  Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?

Hence why I said "it depends" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical "Bob." >


That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.

I explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same. >

No you didn't, you asked "Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.
If Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, "it depends." >

The implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, "many people are saying."
In this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious. >

It’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. 
I think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation. >

this post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation. >

Education. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.
But how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us. >

Unfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.
If anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.
I'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution. >


Unfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.

Do you know what anecdotal evidence is? >

I do.  And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.
It's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, "All bands must have trumpet players", but if someone says "No bands have trumpet players," pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.
Edit:  At this point this person blocked me for some reason.
Pointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution. >

No one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation. >

Virtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. 
However, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories. >

The straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people. >


The straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.

I disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.

You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.

Free speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: 

Obscenity 
Fighting words 
Defamation (including libel and slander) 
Child pornography 
Perjury 
Blackmail 
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes
Incitement to imminent lawless action 
Plagiarism of copyrighted material >

You're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important. >

It is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them >

Terrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider "dangerous to public health." Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?
If not, then it's probably a bad idea. >

If we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help. >

It's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that "dangerous" speech can be banned. >

I don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena. >

I don't see what your point is. >

That the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. 
There’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense. >


That the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. 

I never said that. >

Ban engagement algorithms on social media that feed you content based on the content you’ve watched. >

New digital age bill of rights to clarify rights in the new age of the internet. >

No. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power. >

SAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower. >

Freedom of speech isn’t meant for you to be free to say what you want at home alone in a dark room.  Wtf even is this😂 >

No. but it also doesn't mean you can suborn perjury, commit slander, provoke physical violence or petition for sedition, all of which have become the stock and trade of the Republican Propaganda Ministry. >

There are already laws about those things.  If you’re advocating for anything further, then you’re just an opponent of free speech. >

There are many ways this can be done WRONG and BADLY.
Look up "News guard" as an example of "fact checking" run amok into propaganda. >

The only cure to speech you don’t agree with is more speech to show others why they are wrong, not censorship >

Doesn't work, according to studies.
Just considering the state of the US shows that it doesn't work. If showing others why they're wrong worked, we wouldn't be in this mess. It's not like we don't try to show them. >


Doesn't work, according to studies.

I question the applicability of those studies. Studies like that are only looking at immediately confronting someone who may have deeply held beliefs. 
So, it doesn't work immediately.
However, it does work in the long term. Dissent has a long history of being vindicated in the long term. >

Firstly, that is about the growth of the Freedom of Speech as a right. It doesn't touch on dissent's long-term vindication.
Secondly, if that article shows us anything, it's that it took hundreds of years for Freedom of Speech to become so widely accepted that it was enshrined in the Constitution and still speech was policed up until 1964 when Lenny Bruce was arrested for "obscenities" and sentenced to jail time.
We don't have hundreds of years to combat the misinformation of right now. >


Firstly, that is about the growth of the Freedom of Speech as a right. It doesn't touch on dissent's long-term vindication.

If that's what you took away from that section on Wikipedia, then you weren't reading closely enough. I wasn't talking about the growth of free speech; I'm talking about the ideas that were repressed winning out in the end. Read again and look at the examples that were suppressed as heretical or seditious by various governments.
You have be to able to challenge orthodoxy in order for the truth to come out.

We don't have hundreds of years to combat the misinformation of right now.

This wasn't quite what I was arguing, but I'll bite: 
Why not? Why are you in such a rush? >


I'm talking about the ideas that were repressed winning out in the end.

Those ideas would have continued to be policed by the church if not for the growth in the belief of freedom of speech. That's the purpose of that section, which is why it doesn't go into detail about the examples of banned books. I read it carefully, and I just read it again to be sure.
And you mentioned the long-term vindication, which is why I pointed to just how long-term we're talking. 
As for why we don't have hundreds of years, Climate Change is the key reason. Very little is being done about Climate Change because misinformation has hampered efforts since the very beginning. I just read today that Exxon's scientists predicated Climate Change with startling accuracy way back in the 70s. Exxon not only stifled that information, they eventually started attacking environmentalists and climate science because it was bad for business.
We're on pace to the death and destruction of entire biospheres in our lifetime. Maybe mine, at least. Not sure how old you are. We don't have hundreds of years for Climate Change to be vindicated. >


Those ideas would have continued to be policed by the church if not for the growth in the belief of freedom of speech. 

In decades we went from Galileo to Newton. No amount of repression by the Church could stop people from understanding what they could see with their own eyes. In less than a decade we went from a communist dictatorship to a free Poland. Revolutionaries espousing ideas from the Enlightenment toppled France in just a few years.
The list of repressed ideas and movements that have won is incredibly long. 

As for why we don't have hundreds of years, Climate Change is the key reason.

You're actually wrong about this- the climate change movement has already won. Policy has already been changed and will continue to be changed. The movement is global.
Censorship now serves no practical purpose.

We're on pace to the death and destruction of entire biospheres in our lifetime.

Let me propose a hypothetical to you. For the purposes of our discussion, let's assume that the time frame is actually hundreds of years and not decades. Not only is preventing a climate disaster something we're capable of managing without censorship, but are on a steady course to correct already.
With that assumption in mind, does that justify the ruined lives and deaths that comes from wholesale repression that you'd need in order to suppress "misinformation?"
Would you even apologize to the people you'd have to imprison, kill, or ostracize? >

I don't know why you think we're doing enough to stop Climate Change, but we're not. What we're doing is moving in the right direction, but not fast enough. And we could have started 50 years ago if Exxon hadn't suppressed, ignored, and eventually come out against Climate Science even when they're own scientists predicted Climate Change with eerie accuracy in the 70s.
My original suggestion was not to suppress misinformation, but to teach people how to spot it. No one would have to be imprisoned, killed, or ostracized at all. I fail to see whose lives would be ruined by being more educated, except maybe the people getting rich off of monetizing misinformation. No, I would not apologize to them. >

In your hypothetical scenario, who exactly is "countering misinformation" and how? >

We live in a world of information overload. People are bombarded with propaganda they don't even recognize as propaganda. No one has time to fact-check every story that crosses their path. I am not even sure critical thinking skills could counter the multitude of half truths or lies of omission that make up your average "news" story. 
How many reputable news organizations write speculative articles that are absolute fantasy based on no facts whatsoever. 
Look at the New Mexico killer who targeted Muslims. Until the day he was arrested, stories continued to be published, speculating it was a far right terrorist cell and not another Muslim with a personal greiveance. And despite continued and pervasive speculative stories on all manner of topics that continue to be proven wrong, people still buy it, and "news" organizations continue to do it. This is an organized and pervasive problem. Organizations purposely craft "stories" to appeal to target audiences. Not to honestly propogandize a particular point of view but to make money. Fox News isn't trying to start a facist movement, and CNN is not trying to undermine America. They are trying to make money. >

Education in media literacy and critical thinking. I remember as an 8th grader in the early 90s being taught the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources…I’ve often wondered if that is something still taught these days. >

I think if you let people see a variety of different viewpoints, with zero censorship, the good ideas rise and bad fail.  We should all be doing our own due diligence instead of blindly accepting what we’re told. People need to think for themselves and accept the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t want or need anyone else to decide what information I can or cannot see, I’m an adult and should be expected to make my own decisions.  If I make the wrong decision, that was my choice to make and it’s on me. What if  someone else decides for me and they turn out to be wrong? >

No. First, misinformation isn't commonly defined. Sometimes that information is being spread for malicious purposes. But sometimes "misinformation" is only a term used to say that you don't like something. And there are a lot of cases in between.  No one can really determine these things because that is sometimes only really a personal interpretation. 
Second, any group with power enough to define and actively control misinformation would be corrupted and ultimately use the power to to enrich themselves and control others. >

I would disagree. “Misinformation” is not when you don’t like something. It is when the information is incorrect in context or in detail. There could well be some truth to it, but if it is presented in a context that isn’t right, it is misinformation. It could be 80% true, and if the 20% is made up of misunderstanding or unintentional misrepresentation, it would still be misinformation. But if one is inclined to believe the story being told, the 80% is more than enough to ignore the 20%. When someone points out the misinformation, it is easy to see why someone would think the claim is just someone not liking something. 
None of this has to be intentional or malicious. It just has to be factually incorrect in context in some meaningful way. It may be somewhat up to personal interpretation, but when looked at objectively, it becomes more clear. There is almost always one side using something explicitly false or disregarding facts that don’t suit them. The personal interpretation that comes from that is not as valuable as a personal interpretation using the facts. 
And as for a group being corrupted, that is making an assumption that I don’t think is certain. Private and public groups who actively seek out misinformation have a duty and a responsibility to provide support for their claims. If someone says “this story is misinformation”, they need to also include sourcing that explains and supports that claim with fact. And any counter argument to that must also be based in fact, and can’t just be an attack on the other side. If everybody were held to rules of evidence in their claims, corruption wouldn’t be an issue. If one side doesn’t like having a claim be called misinformation, they can simply address the counter evidence and provide their own supporting evidence. Nobody has to attack anyone, when they can just provide evidence of their claim, right? >

Yeah, these people love to define terms as something they don’t really mean and strawman against them. Intentional or willful negligently spreading lies is misinformation and if spread through the media absolutely capable of regulation under the first amendment without the sky falling. >

Minor correction. Information that is incorrect or misleading is “misinformation”. Intentional, willful, and neglectful spreading of lies is “disinformation”. 
My uncle likes to share content from Fox News. Often, it might be about something congress did or what some politician said. It is generally misinformation. 
But he has also posted that our southern border is wide open, and Biden’s policies are flooding our streets with fentinol because democrats want illegal immigrants to cast ballots. THAT is disinformation. >

What I’m about to say will likely bother a lot of people but here goes.
People who advocate for the First Amendment do not understand how powerful speech is. They haven’t the foggiest clue how it works, how it propagates and how effective it is.
Here’s some basic truths:
- Misinformation is easier to spread than truth
- Undoing misinformation takes more time and effort
Which means when a society embraces Free Speech it effectively gives lies and deception an advantage. Because in the “free market of ideas” propaganda works. It’s why marketing works. It’s why sloganeering works (“Yea we can!” And “Make American Great Again!”).
Human are not equipped to dismantle the dozens of untruths that are thrown at them every day. We simply aren’t capable of undoing every lie. There’s too much to verify.
… and so everyone believes in nonsense. All of us. Without exception believes in something not true. This leads us to not trust each other and without trust, there is nothing.
If people can’t trust each other, the state, institutions… their money… then there’s nothing left. We’ll devolve into tribalism.
Misinformation is going to Win. Because Truth takes time and is costly. 
That’s the basic thrust of it. Free Speech essentially means no guardrails against propaganda and propaganda is extraordinarily effective.
There is absolutely no way to counter Free Speech.
Remember when Reddit was certain Bernie Sanders was going to beat Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That’s a MILD disconnect from what the future has in store for us.
…oh and it’s only going to get worse. Wait till Deepfakes can create perfect fakery of people. When Synthetic Media hits its stride… forget it… the media landscape will collapse in on itself because no one will have any clue what is real and what isn’t.
Imagine a world where Fox News can show video of Biden saying the N word even though it never happened, or the same on CNN for Trump or DeSantis. Imagine Joe Rogan or some other media personality deepfaked into a infomercial where they talk about how Jesus changed their lives…
Or how about Deepfakes of local teachers saying problematic things to get them canceled or fired?
Or how about the us of AI to spread speech? So it can look like a certain view is highly supported (this is already done with botting)
People cannot comprehend how crazy shit is going to get… not even close. >

Except the problem with regulating misinformation is that the people doing the regulating could just as easily be the ones who believe the misinformation as the ones who want to fight it.
A belief in free speech doesn't mean you also believe that misinformation can never succeed in any circumstances. It does mean understanding that a system where sometimes the government punishes misinformation and promotes true information, and sometimes the government punishes true information and promotes misinformation is worse than a system where people are allowed to share any information they want all the time. Even if it sometimes happens that such a system fails, those failures are less severe than the failure of bad actors in government suppressing true information. >

My point is a very basic one. The complexity and sophistication of propaganda is very powerful and the average human being is not equipped to know the difference between lie and truth. Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time. 
That’s why, we’re fucked. Because we won’t tolerate a society without Free Speech. We’re also not capable enough to filter out all the lies were are presented.
In short, we lose. Every step. You’re completely right and it’s because you’re right is why all we’ve built will fail.
Because without trust, there’s nothing. There’s no community, no nation. There’s barely family in that context. >


Free Speech protects the lies and because lies are efficient, they win. Every time.

That isn't even close to true.  Truth wins out far more often than lies.  You may argue that lies win more often than you're comfortable with, but to claim that they win every time is just a ridiculous exaggeration. >

I mean it's just painfully obvious.  Do you honestly believe that the majority of people believe false things about everything?  You stated lies win EVERY time.  Being cynical to that extent isn't being wise, it's just being ridiculous and as conspiratorial as the people you're looking down on. >

Everyone doesn’t believe false things about everything, but everyone believes false things about some things and not the same some things as the next person. 
What are the biggest ongoing issues right now? Covid, climate change, the war in Ukraine… what’s the 100% factual and honest truth about those issues? Are those things the same as they were 6 months ago? Issues are dynamic and what’s true isn’t always apparent until it’s been filtered through a million different perspectives for a while. That’s been one of the biggest takeaways from the covid saga - yesterday’s misinformation is today’s conventional wisdom. >

The problem is not disinformation… this has existed throughout humanity… 
The problem is the Algos… They are actively pushing disinformation to increase engagement >

This isn't the entire problem, but it's neglected such that this should be voted to the top, because this is something that the govt CAN regulate. Social media shouldn't be allowed to just reinforce whatever dumb thing you believe. >

The counter to someone exercising free speech and being wrong is to also exercise free speech and be correct. >

I don't see as much harm in countering misinformation with good information. A lot of the social media sites weren't "censoring" misinformation as much as putting notices near them with links to reputable sources. If, as some groups like to imagine, they had ill intent towards said groups and wanted to "suppress" them, putting those statements there should have little effect as the reader would be able to still see both sides and make a determination.
Additionally, I believe that misinformation about medical topics should be regulated similarly to laws regarding practicing medicine without a license. Constitutionally protected rights are not absolutes, but the bar is high. Making sure people can trust medical advice given is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. If someone portrays themselves as a medical expert and gives harmful advice with reckless disregard for the truth and/or no duty of care that it's accurate, that should be less protected. Similarly, misinformation that's meant to achieve a commercial or economic goal, like energy companies astroturfing anti-renewable propaganda, is commercial speech and should be treated as such.
Thirdly, political misinformation should be counted with good information, but at the end of the day if you can't trust voters to make informed decisions about political issues, absent a ridiculously high bar of deliberate malicious action, you've given up on democracy. You can't step in with legal force simply because you think voters might vote wrong or that what they see/hear might change their mind. 
On the other side, if there is a high bar of deliberate malicious action by a candidate or group affiliated with a candidate or political party, that's a subversion of democracy. If a candidate wants to say that their opponent's tax plan will cost American jobs, that's one thing. If they coordinate with a PAC to say their opponent committed a crime or infamous act when they didn't (a'la Swift Boat Veterans), or run a false candidate with a similar name to draw away votes (like they did in Florida), outright lie about their bonafides (Santos), or promote outright falsehoods (like drinking the blood of innocents in a basement), that ceases to be political speech. What's a punishment that's not a slap on the wrist but also not potentially a cudgel to suppress opposition? I don't know, but I'd propose a public retraction and runoff election before the malicious party takes office. If cheating works, people will continue to cheat. >

FCC fairness doctrine
Something was done but was rescinded in 2011. Misinformation is predominantly the product or facilitated by organizations and removing the ability of media outlets to distribute outright false and counterfactual information. As the old adage goes, it's illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre in the United States just as it is anywhere else so free speech is restricted in the name of the public good on the individual level, it just needs to be extended to the organizational level. 
This is, however, a meaningless argument because of the current over-ideological supreme court majority so it won't happen until some very drastic change comes through. >


The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.

Oh, that sounds great. If I want to have a real doctor on my show to tell people to take COVID seriously, I also have to air the contrasting views of Dr. Quackpants, who thinks that vaccines are full of 5g microchips. >

Never said it was perfect, there are a lot of things that could be improved about the Fairness Doctrine. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and that one can tackle ideas like misinformation on a different organizational level than the individual. >

IMO, we need stronger K-12 education on media literacy and civics. The current k-12 system was designed before the 24 hour news cycle and social media. However, today’s population lives in a much different world. We need stronger education on how to vet, interpret, and understand information in today’s media environment. In addition, we need more education on civics and need to evoke more civic pride into young people. Government is way more complex than it was 100 years ago. Most people barely know how important local government is and what decisions are made at each level of government. I think if people were more educated about media and had a deeper understanding of how government impacts their life, we’d have a much more complex and powerful voting base.
To tie this back to free speech… there is really no easy way to curb misinformation in the US. Yes, platforms can try implementing their policies, but there will always be the lowest common denominators to spread terrible untruthful information. Thus, we need a populous that is better prepared for what is out there and more willing to engage with democracy in a healthy way. Just as we look back on people throwing human waste into the streets during the dark ages, I think people will look back at us for our inability to deal with mass misinformation. >

I think the system was designed assuming that there would be gatekeepers who would vet information before it got into books, papers and televisions.   There were outliers in the form of tabloids but they were easily identifiable.   There are few sources of information today that are easily identifiable as being reliable so the burden of identifying nonsense is on the individual and few have really been trained to do that. >

This is a roundabout paradox of tolerance.  The truth is, it's not hard to correctly categorize misinformation.  It's hard to write policy that manages misinformation without people being able to abuse it.  Same, but different.
But frankly, many countries battle misinformation with a lot more success than we do.  It can be done, and can be done directly. >

What misinformation are you talking about again? Why are you afraid of it anyway? >

Because people die, get sick, have their rights impeded, and miss out on basic opportunities to better their lives because of misinformation from public health to legal rights to basic facts. >

OMG the great killer: MISINFORMATION!! >

Yes, lies about health, safety, elections, and basic facts can kill people and democracy. Even if you use all caps, you can’t change reality or persuade people that a completely ignorant position is wrong. >

Let's take a more low serious topic for a second as a comparison. 
Brushing your teeth.
How often should YOU brush your teeth? Once a day? Before bed? After meals? Three times a day? With or without tooth paste?
There's all sorts of different ways to answer that question. There's hundreds of studies both independent and funded by toothpaste companies that day different things. It is an issue of public health and personal health.
Most people would claim "twice a day" as the "correct" answer. But is that correct? Why would they say that? Most people don't actually brush their teeth that often. You might have found that brushing your teeth that often was giving you too sensitive of teeth so you stopped doing it. Is telling other people to start brushing once a day to prevent sensitive teeth misinformation? Or what if you found you don't like fluoride in your toothpaste and you tell people to use a different brand?
You think it's true. You're telling people your experience and making a recommendation. But it's different than the official position of the American dental association. Should your opinion be suppressed by the media, private orgs like Facebook, reddit, Twitter, etc?
Who do you want to be the arbiter of your information? Is the ONLY way new information is to be determined is if it comes from a funded scientific study? Because that's not always how it works. Often someone has an idea, tries it, then studies come along to replicate it and determine if it's true or not.... if it can be isolated that is. >

Side note: when I was a kid it was 3x's a day after every meal, except almost no one did that, so they changed it to 2xs/day thinking that might be more realistic >

Yep. Just like when on January 7th 2020 I said we should hang presidents who start insurrections by lying about election results I was just commenting about any president who does that. I was not targeting Trump directly! 
If you say I was talking about Trump, that makes YOU the liar!
That's how it works, right? >

I'm sorry, you lost me there. Did you mean to reply to me? >

Nope, sorry. Not sure how that happened! >

The problem is people only want to stop misinformation  that doesn't push their desired narrative.
Liberals were fine with Twitter pushing misinformation that supported their narratives, conservatives are now fine with Twitter pushing its narratives.
No party wants to limit their ability to misinform, just the opposition >

I'd like to stop all harmful disinformation and misinformation. IDK where you got the idea that people like misinfo on their side. I personally just really appreciate truth and hate how lies and ignorance ruin our society. >

Any attempt at implementing this will fail in government. Which it should because the constitution is a thing. It would likely be attempted via big tech / social media companies Instead. Let's not pretend that 95% of that industry isn't firmly leftist. It would pretty quickly devolve into a select few choosing what's true and what isn't based off a political and ideological agenda. >

"people have a right to be wrong" they say. "Freedom of Speech" and so on.
Sure. You have a right to be factually incorrect. What you don't have a right to do is imply, suggest, demand, or convince anyone else that your self-imposed falsehood is the correct path. It doesn't matter what your title or station is - your speech is protected until the exact moment mine comes under threat.
Be wrong. That's fine. Be comically, ineptly, absurdly, and arrogantly wrong if it makes you happy. But be polite enough to keep it to yourself.
Be wrong; be quiet. >

What are you talking about? >

Misinformation is dangerous. Full stop. But we can't do anything about it because Constitution.
So the only solution is to politely steer society in such a direction that people believe the proper thing to do is to keep the shit they think to themselves. >

What would you like to do about "misinformation" and who would be in charge of determining what is "misinformation" and what is "good and approved information?" Again, what are you talking about? >

It's simple. Something is factually correct or it isn't. It's a binary choice.
Your position, your narrative, your thoughts, your job, your faith, your wife and kids, and your money have nothing to do with it.
Gravity is real. COVID is real. Global Warming is real. They don't care about politics. 
And if you have a problem with any of them, of your job, your faith, or politics, or even your life are incompatible with reality, that's your problem. 
No one has the right to retool the English language because the real world is political inconvenient. >

This dude you're replying to is all-in.  It's funny how a far-right folks become solipsists, but only when they're arguing something that doesn't fit their narrative.
"How do we know what's misinformation?"  If someone has to ask his question, they aren't qualified to publish an opinion. >

Anyone under the spell of misinformation is willfully ignorant. 
Virtually the entirety of the globe is walking around with access to all of human knowledge, going back as far as we can prove, in their pocket.
Anyone who gets lied to and believes it has only themselves to blame. Anyone who bases their opinion, philosophy, worldview or political ideology on lies being fed to them is an idiot.
You counter misinformation with the facts.
Anything else is censorship and evil. >

While i think most what you start with is one dimensional and lacks all sense of nuance, i do agree with your conclusion. >

The issue is not about free speech. It's about inequality of speech. If two people are talking and their message is equally heard by people, there's no issue. If one persons message is being heard by 100 times more people, then the situation becomes questionable, even though both people have free speech. In our current economic system the issue is that money can readily be converted in to speech power. Since we have massive wealth inequality in the country and world that translates into massive speech inequality. >


Is there anything that can be done to counter this misinformation?   

Yes. Be honest.
But the press no longer has that gear. >

Teach critical thinking.  Teach students to research and organize their thinking and opinions.
Enforce/require disipline AND thought
To this end, schools and universities should do the fillowing:


have schools compete for students; School choice


Test and certify subject competence; self taught persons should get credit for what they know and how they perform without forcing useless hours in classeoo.s


classes should teach their topic; teachers should compete on perforce in their subjects


teach vigorous debate and critical thinking


require grading curves to end grade inflation


require merit and performance


require students to apply for schools, and expell problem students in challenging schools, and have other schools that focus on remedial, intervention, and skills


limit administration to 1/10 the actual teachers/professors.


Focus on diversity of thought, not diversity of race and sex (which long ago stopped being the criteria for hiring anyway in the US)


A population that can think must allow about any topic or view to be expressed.  Stupidity isn't that much of a problem if the population isn't stupid. >

It isn’t a simple answer. Can online speech be censored without violating the first amendment? Yes it can. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to have your speech published or broadcast. So Twitter has the right to police it’s site, but when the federal government is influencing Twitter on what it censors, then they are getting into a free speech problem. And that happened.
Then we need to ask what is misinformation? Quite a lot has been labeled misinformation which turned out to be quite factual, so who is making that call, and what protections do we have that they are acting in an honest manner?
The Hunter Biden laptop story was censored and called misinformation, but it was true. Various elements of the war in Ukraine have been called misinformation and ended up true, some were called true and ended up as misinformation.
In my view the best course of action is to leave nearly all speech free and let the people decide for themselves, and to avoid self serving government agencies from making partisan choices on the matter. >

At this point both sides simply believe whatever is fed to them regardless of fact checking or reality being a factor.
This country is too far gone for it to matter.. and I shiver at the idea of the extremely split government to try and make any sort of law that "solves" the problem.
My only opinion would be to have cameras on congress 100% of the time, and every member mic'd up during any all all political conversations, whether with other congress people or lobbyist. >

Trying to paint this as a both sides issue is dishonest.  Sure, it happens on both sides, but one side does it far more often than the other and that's not in question. >

Not in this case, misinformation is more or less equally rampant but just on different things. >

This is just whataboutism, plain and simple, not to mention factually incorrect. >

This is neither whataboutism nor is it a factual statement. Our statements are both opinions, and you don't know what whataboutism is. >

Our statements are not both opinions and that's the exact reason why you don't understand this properly.  Sure, both sides don't always tell the truth, but one side in particular actively bends and breaks the truth to fit their narrative constantly.  This is the equivalent of comparing someone who had to kill someone in self-defense to Jeffrey Dahmer and saying, " Well, you're both killers.".  It is a patently absurd position and one that is not based in reality. >

Wow, you misunderstand logical fallacies too. >

The link is right there dude.