> Yeah, that is the whole point...

This rhetorical question is rather old, but you should at least await answers before concluding it can't be answered.

Who is reason?

We only have a whole system of evidence-finding and scientific discovery to solve that question, but ok, let's ignore all progress of the last 200 years.

'Science' is not a court of law.

Please explain.

If you want to deprive people of their right to free speech, you'll have to do it through the courts. Saying that human judges won't be necessary because you'll 'use science' is inane.

You don't seem to have a very high opinion of science.

It's not a person, it's philosophy, logic, science, etc.

Philosophy, logic and science are all applied by persons and the results tend to vary depending on who is applying it. I suppose logic could be a bit more on the objective impersonal side of things but philosophy and science are definitely not. That is, only if logic is actually logic in the sense of logic. If one start talking about tings like 'logical falacies' (e.g. ad homininem, argument from authority and so on) as often is done on forums like these one is already very far from anything objective. For one thing, one is probably inclined to be much more severe in pointing out 'logical falacies' in statements that one disagrees with rather than in statement that one agrees with.

And the people who will be the impartial applicators of reason? Who will these judges of misinformation be?

This is implying there is always a Right™ answer or way to do something - especially when it comes to policy, for example, there's plenty of space for nuance that has no objective right or wrong. Life isn't math, regardless of how much our polarised world wants it to be so

Your assertion falls apart when I ask you if there is a Right™ answer to "Is the Earth flat?".

There are irrefutable answers to some questions. Others are backed up by a mountain of reproducaeble data, collected and re-checked over years, decades, by many people who go out of their way to disprove their own hypothesis and wriggle out of their own data. When they cannot reasonably do so, we are left with a fact.

Most of them are not perfect, immutable or immortal, but even if not, no rational person can accuse them of being wrong.

> Your assertion falls apart when I ask you if there is a Right™ answer to "Is the Earth flat?".

No it doesn't, I didn't claim there are no issues or questions where we know the answer. The empirical kind, like the one you present, are a good example for that. But policy isn't about whether the Earth is flat or whether climate change is real, but about how to tackle them in the best way possible, which depends on what you value.

> There are irrefutable answers to some questions.

I didn't claim that wasn't the case, though you can continue with your strawman if you'd like.

> Most of them are not perfect, immutable or immortal, but even if not, no rational person can accuse them of being wrong.

So what happens if we have multiple theories that no one can accuse of being wrong because we simply don't have enough insight into some very complicated matters? Which one do we put in practice? Or do we wait years before we gather the data for it, by which time it might be irrelevant anyway

> But policy isn't about whether the Earth is flat or whether climate change is real, but about how to tackle them in the best way possible, which depends on what you value.

I think the US is somewhat special at the moment in that it appears to have two dominant political factions which seem to be almost polar opposites in their goals and values. This is not the normal state of things in policymaking in this extreme form.

Also note that values are not as arbitrary as you make them out to. A large part of the history of civilization was in some way about determine which values are good ones to have and which aren't.

One standard which we honour today are the human rights.

Of course you can have a value system which rejects basic human rights, but then I don't see a lot of reason to respect people following that value system or make accomodations for them.

"This is implying there is always a Right™ answer or way to do something" suggests to me that you assert there is not a right answer when there certainly are in some cases. I definitely agree that some policies require nuance and changes with new data.

> So what happens if we have multiple theories that no one can accuse of being wrong because we simply don't have enough insight into some very complicated matters? Which one do we put in practice? Or do we wait years before we gather the data for it, by which time it might be irrelevant anyway

I wasn't addressing your statement that policy is often difficult to pin down, only the inference that there are no right answers.

We have been attempting our best to come towards the most correct answers for everything, since forever. To suggest all of a sudden that this method is irrelevant is odd. It is to suggest that we should no longer pursue truth and instead lay everything on the table and say it's all correct and you should just pick whatever makes you feel the best.

We can't pursue Truth where there is no objective Truth to be pursued, we have to figure out what a good course of action is right now, without spending centuries to solve a problem that destroys society tomorrow.

I wasn't really talking about free speech in particular, though it applies there as well. Is there a general consensus in philosophy on what The Truth About Free Speech is? Where the limits *need* to be? How to implement it in the context of large social media corporations?

There isn't some grand set of values that everyone has to agree with, btw, unless you're willing to sacrifice everyone else's mental frameworks and perspectives (which might be a sacrifice you're willing to take, but I guess not everyone is so keen on :) )

Who determines reason?

No single person, group or authority. It is an ongoing determination by many people from a host of backgrounds, biases and intentions who still all agree on what is reasonable and what is not. It is determined by merely asking oneself "do I have doubt that is logical, fair and as unbiased as possible?". Gather enough of these people - from as wide a field as possible - and you have reason.

> it is an ongoing determination by many people from a host of backgrounds, biases and intentions who still all agree on what is reasonable and what is not.

Where does this happen currently?

Dialectics. Immanent critique. The method of isolating the contradictions of a system so as to arrive at the best possible answer. No one said there is a quick formula for this, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.

And it's humans who decide what "science" is based on their incorrect p value selection and corruption and mishandling of statistics even if they mean good.

Irrelevant. Misinformation is information that is known to be false by the spreader. They can not make the argument that they honestly thought it to be true.

I'd argue that the vast majority of misinformation online is spread by those that truly believe it.

The people often do. But at the root are people who knowingly create misinformation and spread it.

How do you know this? I'm sure some misinformation is created intentionally, but I think most comes from people who think they've found some truth.

> known to be false by the spreader

So if the spreader believes it's true? How do you know if they know or pretending?

That's a special case that we can discuss when necessary.

I think it's useful enough for practical purposes that we can clearly classify something as misinformation where the spreader knew what they were doing.

> Misinformation is information that is known to be false by the spreader.

That's wrong. Misinformation is often spread unwittingly.

Yes, but much is created by bad actors knowingly spreading misinformation so it will go viral. I do not fault those who do not know better but I fault those who do or should by the result of their position. All leaders and candidates have an obligation to check there information. All purported news agencies or pundits as well. There is a different burden depending on audience an reasonable affect.

Less than you think. A lot of misinformation is spread by people who pretend to believe it, but do know on some level it is bullshit.

Since you seem to be splitting hairs: if I think the Earth is flat and I tell people this, my belief makes no difference to whether it is misinformation or not.

My belief means that it is a falsehood rather than a lie.