> Allowing false information to fester is wrong So what happens when "false" information "conspiracy theories" turn out to be true? How should it be handled wh

> Allowing false information to fester is wrong So what happens when "false" information "conspiracy theories" turn out to be true? How should it be handled when people in the position to censor information choose to do so in bad faith? (e.g. they lied about it being fake, or they weren't sure it was fake but they chose to censor bc it aligned with their political beliefs) And what if the censorship impacts were time sensitive? (e.g. they negligently censored sensitive election-related information immediately before an election, and then decided to report it as legitimate news shortly after the election - after the censorship goal was accomplished) "Oops we made a mistake" is not even close to an acceptable response. I say we treat free speech more like civil rights, harsh penalties and all. From the article: Hunter Biden was announcing that his “tax affairs” were under investigation....That news was denounced as Russian disinformation by virtually everyone in “reputable” media, who often dismissed the story with an aristocratic snort....That tale was not Russian disinformation, however, and Biden’s announcement this week strongly suggests Twitter and Facebook suppressed a real story of legitimate public interest just before a presidential election.