>

I think the premise of your question is the flaw.
We have this modern obsession with truth, misinformation, fake news, etc.  The problem is, truth is rarely black and white, and for a lot of topics we don't know the truth.  It would he great to have live fact checking, but there is no absolute source of truth to check against.
What I think is more valuable is open and critical discourse.  Flawed arguments don't stand up to scrutiny, and the only real way to find the truth is by asking questions.
So much modern discourse dies because of our obsession with "facts".  If I make a conservative statement "nice Fox news brainwashing".  Or a counter argument "according to politico, your opinion is wrong".  We've lost the ability to talk and cooperate to find the truth, and instead expect others to feed it to us.
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. >

Ya, that link doesn't support you the way you think it does.  My analogy isn't fallacious in the way you are implying. >

No. Nothing can be done about it.
In some cases slander and libel laws can help — just see the Alex Jones cases for this — but those are only the most extreme cases and can be countered by a “parody” tag.
Remember that no matter what side you’re on, the other side will be back in power eventually. That’s why we limit government power — anything you use on your enemy can be used by them against you. >

The best way to counter misinformation is to provide accurate information that can be validated and sourced.  
It is not better to do it by removing that misinformation and pretending it doesn't exist.   
As far as slander and libel, you would need to be able to prove that misinformation is negatively attributed to you and you have damages in some way that you can seek recourse. You would also need to be able to prove that it was malicious and simply incompetence.  Ianal.   
As far as politics, lies and misinformation are many times simply a matter of different perspectives in which it may be true from that different perspective. 2 people can have different perspectives based on the same facts and it does not mean either person is wrong or lying. >

Hold the people accountable who spread misinformation.  Right now it’s simply too easy and there’s nothing being done despite the damages.  Alex Jones going down is a great first step. >

Go and seek the truth yourself. Can’t always do that though. So, you have to watch or read whatever news you trust the most.  They all have biases although here it seems to be all about bashing Fox News.  Well, I got "news" for ya kids….. your precious news sources are also mostly for entertainment too. They pile it on even worse. 
Im reading a lot about fact checking.  OK, but who’s fact checking the fact checkers?  Uh oh.  See why this is difficult?   Take Fauci and Covid for example. My goodness, the twists, BS and inconsistent information was crazy.  So overblown as we now look back. But, a lot of "educated" people shlepped it all up.  
Education and classes in statistics sounds good in theory but then you are relying totally on people that also may have an agenda or a bias.  So, their "facts" will be laden with their side of the story.  Of course too you have the issue of perspective and point of view.  That plays a Big role and can’t be easily discarded.  We need our free speech laws even if it means we have to let people like Rachel Madcow or Joy Behar spew their nonsense and shady "facts".  Right? >

I don't believe so. I think too many people are too stupid, and it's gonna get worse, and the technology is going to benefit those that wish to manipulate even more, and so, essentially, we're all fucked. >

Several countries have or have recently had but lost laws or have recently not had but now have enacted laws that restrict "the news", including online "news" and often including what the US calls "entertainment news". (I really am sorry for the use and overuse of scare quotes, I'm not sure how to get the tone across without such crass measures.)
Canada (where I live) has had a slew of measures over the years, from a relatively simple prohibition of the offense of spreading false news (until 1992) to the modern somewhat toothless: 

91 (1) No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish, during the election period,
(a) a false statement that a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act—or under an Act of the legislature of a province or a regulation made under such an Act—or has been charged with or is under investigation for such an offence; or
(b) a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party or a public figure associated with a political party.

In between we've had a lot of rulings and legislation and civil remedies that have kept Fox News out for the most part on one side but allowed Rebel News on the other. Our election period restrictions are still quite strong but the rest is tissue paper at best and specifically is terribly ineffective against anything that isn't a giant corporate agent.
I see this across the world really. Even countries that are willing to restrict speech in the aim of social harmony are challenged by internet speech, ignoring even the more totalitarian ones that can also control that to some degree. It's weird and scary too and I say that as someone that has always advocated for the freest speech possible. I thought the early days of IIRC and even 4Chan and such would be good. If everyone could say anything, I thought the people of the world would come to understand one another better and the idiots would smarten up and come to their senses.
I could not have been more naïve and I was already pretty damned cynical in '99 when I was helping to shape this world we now wallow in. >

There is no political will to tackle this issue.  Corporate conglomerates are driven by click bait profits from yellow journalism.  They control most of the media outlets and social media platforms at this point. Politicians benefit from actively undermining the validity of the 4th estate in order to discredit attempts to hold them accountable.  All of the pillars of a free society are under attack in the name of profits or power.  I don’t think there is a way forward other than to let it collapse and hope that a more European style of government and society emerges from the ruins.
That said, there are things that should happen that won’t.  
We should require social media companies to know their users.  Right now “brad from texas” spewing hate speech is likely “vlad from moscow” intentionally trying to undermine the society of an enemy country.  Hold these companies accountable for verifying humans and their nationalities in order for those people to use their platforms.
Ban social media companies from using user data for targeted advertising.  Possibly ban a company from being a social media and advertising business.
Break up media companies that own media outliers across markets.  It used to be illegal and should be illegal again.
Require media companies to label opinions, label infotainment, label speculation, etc. and hold them accountable for not misleading their audiences.  Possibly require disinformation warnings like they do with cigarettes and the emergency broadcast system. >

Could someone explain to me exactly what freedom of speech means to a US citizen? 
Do you think it means tou can say anything you like at any point for any reason? >

I used to think the solution was to ask people who believe nonsense open ended questions but have learned that they see questions as a trap. Generally, the answer is do your research
You cannot even ask where is the research I can read because they either won’t tell you or point you to www.iamamoron.com >

In the US media ecosystem, there is profit in outrage. Radio is the best example of this. AM Radio is an outrage machine, and it makes people "feel" outraged. Which is a feeling. So the Internet traffics in outrage and clicks. As a poster said below, Alex Jones monetized outrage by selling things to outraged people. He crossed a line but did he? I mean, sure, he has to pay a billion dollars, but will he? 
He still goes on the air and generates outrage. 
So a different and not both sides extent, the New York Times opinion pages are outrage machines. Often outraging the left, which overwhelmingly pays the Times (what are they going to do, cancel the subscription?)
But opinion is not misinformation. I can have the opinion that being a Grammar Nazi is evil, but that isn't a fact or misinformation.  Tucker Carlson is an opinion guy who skates a fine line. 
Anyway, education. 
My favorite one is to ask people who "they" are. Yes, but who are "they" who are trying to do the thing? Can you be specific? When you drill someone down to who the "radical left" is it ends up being Colbert and/or AOC. >

The answer, as unintuitive as it is today, is actually more free speech, government enforced. No more safe spaces on the internet where every dissenter to the echo chamber is immediately perma banned. I'm banned from several dozen reddits because of nothing more than playing devil's advocate and having it called trolling or not in the spirit of the sub, and those are the better reasons. And it's all about maintaining a safe space for dangerous ideas to fester without challenge. It needs to end. >

When I was in middle school I had a teacher that used to make us read news articles every week. We will have to pick three articles standing from the classroom and read them. Then he told us the bias in the articles and how to break down the wording and what the author is trying to tell you or convey to you.
When I was in the 8th grade I thought this was a useless dumb assignment and it made me angry. As an adult I use those skills everyday when reading newspapers or listening to the news. I think the only way to fix this problem is to educate the public We need more schools/classes that are mandatory that make kids understand what bias media is and how to read between the lines and not take things on face value. >

Oddly enough, not one leftist gave two shits about misinformation when it came to the Steele dossier. They were too busy jerking off thinking about hookers peeing on hotel beds. Too get conservatives onboard with fighting misinformation, we’re going to need to see it applied evenly >

The solution is to question everything.  People are so polarized that they can see misinformation even in truth from the other side, but can not see blatant lies from their own. >

Keep in mind Amend. 1 to U.S. Const. is designed to protect lies not truth. 
Truth stands on its own.
I suggest performing some research into the origin of the National Gazette. You will find that the rapist, pedophile, and child molester Thomas Jefferson, and the cohort James Madison who also, per their laws, "owned" humans, established that publication to print political propaganda contrary to the administration they were serving in. >

If we had a media that did actual adversarial journalism to hold the powerful (govt, corporations, military, etc)accountable, the misinformation would be drastically reduced. Instead, we have a corporate media that protects the powerful and is adversarial to the working class on behalf of the powerful. As the government, military and corporations act in solidarity for their own benefit which also immiserates and impoverishes people (including many americans) all over the world and the corporate is in on it, it’s perfectly normal and expected for alternate narratives, including some based in misinformation, to spread. So basically the short answer is the solution to misinformation, albeit not a perfect one to end all misinfo, is a wealthy/corporate/billionaire classicide.
Edit: these are socialist revolutionary politics. Silence them at your own deprivation of exposure to a growing political sentiment globally. >

It seems we need one set of rules for the public and another, more strict, set of laws for politicians and journalists. >

Yeah, use your own brain. Other than that, no. A basic concept we should all learn at a young age, don't believe everything you read. It is that simple, nothing needs to be done, no one needs to sanitize anything for you. You will read things you don't like, things you do, things that make you smarter, things that make you dumber, true things, false things, exciting things, boring things, things you thought were true but turn out otherwise, things you thought were false but turn out otherwise, controversial things, mundane things and in the end you will survive reading them all. Promise. >

Throughout history, and probably before cops were invented, social pressure was a great driver of behaviour... >

Free speech has nothing to do with Twitter or Social Media.   It means you can still post what you want in other places and the government can't put you in jail for anything you say that is not a crime. >

I remember years ago in Philly the professional tour guides were trying to shut down the independent ones, mainly because they were saying things like William Penn was Ben Franklin’s grandfather or Betsy Ross was George Washington’s mistress, but the court found for the misinterpreters because of 1a. Now I think it would have made a good episode of Drunk History >

Well I think its important to distinguish what misinformation and disinformation is.  Misinformation is someone accidentally spreading false information because they're ignorant and disinformation is someone spreading false information deliberately. >

This is odd question because countering misinformation shouldn't violate the first amendment. 
Because it's not an issue for the government to solve. 
It's the just the mot-de-jure used to gin up a moral panic. In reality it is simply just a not good thing but also not a problem.
Frankly, vigorous attempts to combat do more to bolster it than anything else. >

There is no simple answer.  The First Amendment as interpreted precludes GOVERNMENT control of the press and precludes prior restraint by the GOVERNMENT of stories the government thinks are harmful.  I think most would agree that the basic idea of a free press is good -- no one wants the government deciding what information can and cannot be distributed.  Such power is always abused.
Accordingly, we are forced to rely on the effectiveness of private parties owning the websites.  What's going on with Twitter right now demonstrates the problems with relying on private parties with a profit motive to protect us.   
The problem is that we are hoping that private profit seekers will protect us from ourselves (our human tendencies) even though it will cost them money.  There will ALWAYS be greedy people who just don't care what damage they cause if they are making more money.  One could point to the data suggesting that there are more sociopaths in the super rich than in the general population.
My understanding is that the main problem is the algorithms that feed social media users more and more extreme content in order to boost ad sale revenues and the value of user data that can also be sold or used to generate revenue.   These algorithms result in siloing of people into information silos and such people are never exposed to contrary information or analyses.  This results in radicalization.  
So, one step would be to try to regulate the algorithms that private providers can use -- essentially require social media to use algorithms that link to opposing views.  Kind of a new fairness doctrine for the internet as it used to exist for broadcast media.  Enforcement would be difficult, and a fairness doctrine has its own issues (not least that it encourages false equivalencies -- some propositions cannot "fairly" be defended), but it would be a step in the right direction. >

Here's the problem: Responsibility and accountability.
A person on YouTube, Facebook or Reddit is held accountable. The other commenters will ask for burdens of proof and/or take them to task on misinformation, bias, etc.
The MEDIA however, is not faced with this. They either ignore criticism, or worse, use their voice and power to shout/cancel the individual taking them to task.
This applies also to our leaders we elect as well. They spout off whatever they want in committee, "the floor", or anywhere else, and yet when was the last time any one of them ever did jail time for obvious, blatant violations like perjury or conflicting interest?
To bring it back to the OP, the counter to misinformation is information. And honestly we're all responsible for that. We're all responsible for hearing something, verifying it's correct, then critically thinking about it, and then forming an opinion.
That's the beauty and duty of America and Americans. We're in charge of ourselves, so if we fail, we honestly have no one to blame but ourselves. >

Since nobody can say anything that will actually be heard by anyone without the consent of an internetmedia mogul, said mogul's just need to ban lies. Take down the lies. After repeated offenses, close the account of the liars. Pretty simple really. Private companies can do that without hurting the 1st amendment. Unless SCOTUS decides it's de facto infringement because there is noplace left for liars to go. But why would anyone - even this crazy Supreme Court - want to protect liars? >

You could make a distinction between individuals and corporations and hold corporations to literally any standard above none. >

Not really. The government has chosen to censor, but it's actually against our rights. >

Yes.  It's called rational debunking.  The thing is that that does NOT involve appeals to authority (i.e. you can't just say "because experts said"), nor does it involve any form of personal attacks or slights (no matter how infuriating the person being debunked may be).  It's hard, it's frustrating, and it doesn't always work on the people who you're speaking directly to.  The key is that it will work on the audience whereas the things I said not to do will convince the audience that the person attempting to do the debunking doesn't actually know what they're talking about and so isn't actually saying anything worth hearing. >

“Is there any way to stop people from voicing opinions I don’t agree with?“, that’s how this reads to me. >

There are several issues. First, let’s remember freedom of speech is only applicable with reference to the government. It doesn’t apply to private companies or the general public … save for libel, slander, and incitement laws. Private companies can make any rules they want regarding speech.
The other issue is … who do we trust? The media has lost all credibility on truth after 5 years of collusion headlines, burying stories, and pushing narratives later to be found false. Everyone is in bed with everyone else. Media and government, medical and government, unions and government, education and government … the obvious commonality is government. When you’ve got otherwise respected medical journals publishing lies, we’ve got a huge problem.
I’d like to believe the truth will eventually come out. But, I’m not so confident about that. Whether it’s politics, science, medicine, the military, and the elite wealthy, truth can be bought and buried.
In the end you have to understand a good portion of what’s out there is embellished, partial truth, spun, rhetoric, or outright lies. It’s better to have more information that allows us to make our own decisions. >

Short answer...no.  It's not the 'misinformation' that's the problem, it's the fact that there is and always will be a 'market' for it.  Well over 50% of today's Republicans still believe Trump won the last election.  Despite countless lost court battles and no verifiable evidence produced millions of people still 'believe' Trump won.  Point being, it's not the information itself...it's the gullibility of those willing to be misinformed that is the problem.  Sadly...there is no solution for that. >

The educational system needs to be improved.  For instance, so much of what we hear or read is really logically flawed. You can tear apart any new article, especially opinion pieces and count the fallacies.  Just look up Fallacy or cognitive bias in Wikipedia and see how many types you run into on a regular basis.  The real change/problem is that people want to be fooled.  They are not critical of the political side they have chosen.
They at best you cannot really censor people because you cannot be so sure about misinformation, you can offer up opposing views at the same time in many cases (facebook etc.).  Lastly, the TANGIBLE harm produced by misinformation is subject to legal penalties. >

People now like to hear narratives that reinforce their current world view and not challenge it. Guess what? Both sides, are rarely equal. We can't be afraid to call BS. Start there! >

Yes. Private companies like Twitter and the other social media outlets are not bound by free-speech rules despite the bullshit you hear from Elon musk. Those companies should be regulated. And the regulation should address misinformation and spreading hate and lies. Facts are still facts, despite what the maga says. >

News and talk shows could offer side by side presentation.  Not the phony talk shows who have their token Liberal or conservative shill to "debate" the issue while the majority shouts and insults them.
A 1 minute from right leaning newscaster, then a left leaning covering the same story.  The viewers can see in real time the omissions.
Ground News app does this quite well. >

People need to be better educated. Full stop. Then people can see through the bullshit. And I’m not talking about quantity of education, because degrees now days are more about dogma than about scholasticism. I’m talking about QUALITY. Highschool should be enough for 99% of people in this world >

Yes, you could ban misinformation and disinformation.   There's no First Amendment right to spread either of those. >

Maybe making sure that anonymusly posting opinions is illegal?
That way you can still say everything, but you cannot hide behind a smoke screen. 
It's too easy to post total nonsense now with no adverse effects for the person posting >

This is what the online companies are attempting, and anything they do is not a violation of the first ammendment since they're private.  Except of course Twitter under Musk which will turn into a shithole of Qanon theories. >


Europe, unlike the US, however, doesn't have the right to free speech enshrined in their various constitutions

As a German lawyer, sorry, but this is bullshit. Germany has the freedom of expression for example, Art. 5 Basic Law. This freedom is also included in Art. 10 of the European Declaration on Human Rights.
What we don't have is the same interpretation of its limits. That is a very important distinction. While at the time of writing of the US constitution, it was thought of that for a functioning society, you only need protections against the government, most European Constitutions were written a considerable amount of time later when unfetted freedoms where seen to be able to destroy systems rather easily, and especially uncontrolled freedom of speech was used to enable the rise of Hitler and the like.
Because of that, protective rights were developed, like in Germany the human dignity, against which the freedom of speech cannot be used to undermine it.
So, the main difference between the US and the EU (at least the parts of I am educated on) is that the EU has a more developed system of checks and balances for constitutional rights that also extents to the freedom of speech. That said, even the US has limitations of it, so, the only real difference is where the different societies put the limits.
For the example you gave:

We all know just how tricky and damaging online misinformation actually is. We have laws against libel and slander, but they are difficult to prosecute (and likely for good reason), as they require proof of damages done as a result of the fraudulent statements. 

Under German law, suing for damages and misinformation is easier because all you have to prove is that the libel and slander is sufficient to damage your public image, you don't need to prove active damages.
In addition, most fake news are against groups of people, so where no individual would have the right to sue for these laws designed for individuals anyway. Because of that, there is the incitement to hatred of the masses (regularly mislabeled as "hate speech laws"), that is somewhat effective. >

No. Freedom is dangerous. It always has been, and always will be. And it is worth the risk. >

Just say confidently say “Well that is exactly what the Illuminati want you to think” >

Bring back the Fairness Doctrine. It does not violate the First Amendment. The growth of right wing media spreading lies and disinformation has harmed America to the point of civil war, due to the drum beat of hate from Carlson and Greene and Bannon and Hannity and Jones and on and on and on. The fascist goons have literally taken over the airwaves and now Twitter. >

Isn't the bigger question WHY do people choose to believe easy-to-debunk misinformation? 
I've seen other posts about the dopamine hit theory of 'hidden knowledge', but as a naturally skeptical person, I've never experienced that, so I don't get it. Most of these stories are so ridiculous that you'd have to be way past gullible to believe them. Like lizard people and the wealthy cabal of pedophiles drinking children's adrenachrome.... all with no actual proof??  Wow. The shocker is that people who are willing to buy into this include educated professionals.  How does that happen?? >

The problem isn’t misinformation. The problem is people. People will use a fact.  But word it to make an agenda seem true. When they are just twisting a fact. For example. People think that Chicago is a dangerous city. When it’s really safer than most of the country. Fact used is that they are usually in the top 10 of all crime statistics. BUT no-one take into account population. When you look at these same statistics in a per capita format. They aren’t in the top 50% of any statistic. The truth is. You can go looking for it and still not find it, in Chicago. When you compare them to a city like Baltimore. Baltimore has 1/8 of the population and 1/10 of the mass. Yet their numbers are worse or similar. >

John Stewart made this point on his podcast about misinformation, when the government was building its evidence of an immediate rocket attack by Iraq, JS disagreed and mocked the government.
At the time, he was misinformation. But was vindicated later. >

The entire constitution needs to be rewritten.  there have been more changes to the world and daily life since it was written than in the 2000 years before it.  There is no possible way the framers could have anticipated this world.