I agree with you. Even setting aside the human rights angle for the sake of argument (and it should NOT be set aside), limitations on the press, of any kind, ar

I agree with you. Even setting aside the human rights angle for the sake of argument (and it should NOT be set aside), limitations on the press, of any kind, are a wickedly sharp two-edged sword and can swing back viciously on any would-be wielder. But I don't think that's actually what we should focus on. The problem isn't that some teenage anarchist can write and post conspiracy theories for whoever wants to believe them; the problem is that, if they are sensational enough, they can travel around the world a million times and entirely outpace any counter-argument or retraction. This is a moral harm. It harms people who are being exposed to these falsehoods and who (for one reason or another) are not in a position to accurately and skeptically judge their merit.Not to beat a dead horse, but how many Catholics voted for Trump because they thought he had the Pope's endorsement? That isn't right or fair, not for the Pope, not for Catholics who were lied to, and not for the country. I don't think the solution is a matter of policy; I am staunchly against the formation of any sort of "ministry of truth." But I do think this is a serious societal issue that ought to be addressed at a technical, educational and sociological level. We technologists created the circumstances where this has become a problem: I believe it is incumbent upon us to think about how we can solve it in a way that respects free speech. People should be able to say whatever they want, but we need to make sure that we haven't created an environment where objective truth can't even exist. It does, and it needs to be accessible.