Evaluating the argument

The solution to bad speech is more speech: rather than censoring presumed falsehoods shared by some users, online platforms should remain neutral forums, where other users can challenge these claims, using evidence and argumentation, and the marketplace of ideas can determine where the truth lies.

The real problem isn’t all the false information; it’s people’s inability to distinguish truth from falsehood. So rather than simply assembling a small group of so-called experts to find and censor falsehoods before they spread, we must instead focus on building everyone’s skills in critical thinking and dialogue until we’re all experts, working the truth out together.

Although free speech is tremendously important, so is the need to protect individuals and society from the worst effects of viral misinformation. To balance these priorities, online platforms must give fairly wide latitude to free speech while censoring falsehoods that are particularly alluring and dangerous.

Free speech is great in a well-ordered society, but can turn pernicious in societies like ours, where there’s significant distrust, fear, and antipathy between people, and where malicious individuals and groups are eager to take advantage by manipulating others with their lies. Given our volatile situation, online platforms must work with the government to censor any speech whose falsehood threatens to make things worse.