The problem is that if we look back with hindsight, knowing what we know now, then back in (for example) early february there's a lot of material in the "Reddit

The problem is that if we look back with hindsight, knowing what we know now, then back in (for example) early february there's a lot of material in the "Reddit rumors" that turned out to be accurate and the official position of certain major governments and even WHO was misleading, possibly intentionally. Yes, it's important to reduce misinformation, but it's also important (and IMHO even more important) to allow challenging the official information. The issue of "truth vs misinformation" is orthogonal to whether the information is approved by some particular source. So what I'm worried about is when the official position of some nationstate conflicts with the truth, then they'll be able to label the truth "misinformation" and get it removed/suppressed because of that, and that is something we definitely want to avoid. Sure, politicians can call anything they dislike as misinformation or fake news, but it's imperative that they don't get the ability to remove/suppress that information just because of that. Rumors spread in the absence of trustworthy, extensive, reliable information. If in some situation there's no trustworthy, extensive, reliable information provided (for example, about the early situation in Iran) and rumors is all we can get, then rumors don't need to be suppressed as they are the best source of truth available even if it's not perfect.