> The purpose of the recent campaign against "disinformation" is to make it more difficult to point out that the elites are lying. That is not apparently true?

> The purpose of the recent campaign against "disinformation" is to make it more difficult to point out that the elites are lying. That is not apparently true? Generally speaking the disinformation stuff is to prevent blatantly false conspiracy theories from being circulated widely? In any case, you're still free to talk about those ideas, you just don't necessarily have access to the level of circulation you might otherwise. Historically, this seems pretty reasonable to me. When the constitution was written, if you had a fringe idea, you could shout it on the streetcorner and tell all your friends in person, but it was time-consuming work. Unless you had access to capital, you were probably not going to have your ideas printed and spread beyond what you personally were able to accomplish via direct communication. I don't think the founders had it as a goal that every idea would be maximally disseminated. That's not what free speech was about, and, for me, that's not what free speech ought to be about.