"It's weird to me that we still have people that still cling to the idea that censorship and curation of content is always evil and every site on the Internet should allow completely unmoderated speech, when we've seen over and over and over that such sites always devolve into festering echo-chambers of hatred and racism. Always. Every time."

I'd find your comment much more interesting if you actually argued against the OP's point rather than this strawman.

"False information is much more powerful than true information"

So apparently you believe individuals aren't capable of responsibly enjoying freedom, and thus should concede automomy of thought to the elite for what information they can consume or spread?

Some people can't handle their alchohol, but prohibiting the sale of alcohol didn't solve the probelm. Some individuals have problems, so the way to deal with that is at the individual level. Sorry the solution doesn't scale well. Freedom is great, but it's kind of expensive.

Targeted misinformation campaigns are capable of destroying freedom just as easily as any authoritarian government -- in fact the former is always a tool of the latter. Therefore I can rephrase your last sentence as "Freedom is great, but it comes at the cost of freedom."

People choose to consume alcohol knowing it will get them drunk. People do not choose to be lied to. A better analogy is saying that the government should not attempt to regulate what companies put in the food they sell, because then I must believe individuals aren't capable of self-determining what is or is not safe for them to eat. Correct: I do not believe in "buyer beware" for food nor for facts.

> It's weird to me that we still have people that still cling to the idea that censorship and curation of content is always evil and every site on the Internet should allow completely unmoderated speech

No, not every site. But just as we have some public forums in the real world (not all, or even most "festering echo-chambers of hatred and racism"), we should have some on the internet.

> Not only are you conveniently ignoring that reality, but you're also ignoring the fact that humans are humans.

This reminds of arguing with objectivists who think that everything they believe flows from "A is A". I do agree that humans are humans, I'm glad we found some common ground here. Presumably you are human as well. But you are not concerned that what you believe is the result of "false information that has been carefully constructed and self-selected to misinform you and appeal to your emotions". It's only other humans who are vulnerable to this, and you need to protect them from it, for their own good.

> Stop. Just stop. You're not helping. You're not enlightened. You're part of the problem.

And who determines what is true? Do I get to censor Obama when he claimed 'if you like your healthcare, you can keep it' (rated 'lie of the year' by politifact btw)?

When you start down this path, you will quickly find yourself amongst a nest of vipers.

You're comparing falsehoods with hate and racism--I don't think that's a fair comparison. YouTube has always had rules around hate speech, and that generally has not been controversial.

Those are some extraordinary sweeping claims you've made with exactly zero evidence to back them up.