This is where my original comment was intended. It would seem anyone reading this document in its entirety and extracting the focus on any group or any specific event should see that the premise is a prescription for censorship.

It's understandable that censorship is not a good thing. But when we talk about "the marketplace of ideas" it's easy to forget that marketplaces can have scammers and bad actors.

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think that flooding the market with fakes is a good thing. I do know that most people don't like to be wrong and there's a human tendency to double down rather than admit a mistake.

I've tried to engage in conflicting opinions here trying to find a common ground and have failed every time. I'm stupid enough to try again but shit gets ugly fast and I don't want dang to have to scold me yet again.

Unrelated to this thread, but keep up your attitude. I love people like you who persist in trying to engage in good faith.

Thank you. I wish I didn't fail all the time.

I think the big question here is who should then 'regulate' the marketplace of ideas? In a free speech society is this the government? Is it corporations?

In either case or a combination thereof the regulation will undoubtedly contain bias. Thus why free speech is supposed to be free speech.

In economics it is understood the only way to accomplish a true monopoly is through government regulation. If we allow government regulation of in the marketplace of ideas we run a very real risk of seeing monopolies of ideas.