> nobody talked about censorship

> put a stop on spread of misinformation

That’s what censorship is. A small group of people will decide what is considered misinformation and will censor everything that goes against that

> That’s what censorship is. A small group of people will decide what is considered misinformation and will censor everything that goes against that

This is not censorship. Censorship is stopping you from expressing your thoughts. Not publishing your thoughts is not. You can say whatever you want but no newspaper is in any obligation to publish it.

Similar with social media, you can write whatever you want on your personal "page", but they are under no obligation to make sure it reaches other people's feed.

"but they are under no obligation to make sure it reaches other people's feed.."

Nice euphemism for censorship.

Social media is common people writing and reading. And they choose which people to follow etc.

"stopping a post to go viral" means in this context activily manipulating and interfering what information does and does not reach other people.

That is something very different than a newspaper refusing to publish a certain article.

Is censorship really the greatest crime? Is there no intelligent way to facilitate the search for truth that doesn’t require us to get bogged down in accepting every possibility as equally plausible? Of course there is. One thing is certain. Crying “that’s censorship!” will not get us to that place.

There is a time in not that long ago recorded history where this would have risked settling on the conclusion that the Earth was the center of the universe (and it was flat), leeches and blood-letting were a treatment for diseases, and heavier than air flying machines were impossible.

If you’ll permit a scientifically inaccurate analogy here: sunlight is the best disinfectant.

So is fighting misinformation a lost cause, or can we come up with some plan that doesn't involve a small group of people censoring it? Would some kind of distributed rating system like upvotes/downvotes be acceptable, or is the better course of action to be okay with letting all information -- even if specifically designed to trick people, not only the most gullible, but even the most discerning skeptics -- circulate?

I believe the government should not have a say in whether or not all information circulates, but ordinary people who build information sharing systems (and I don't just mean electronic ones) have an opportunity to figure this out. Should they not?