I'm not pretending anything with regard to "real damage." Incitement of violence is real and indisputable and no one is defending that. However, "conspiracy t

I'm not pretending anything with regard to "real damage." Incitement of violence is real and indisputable and no one is defending that. However, "conspiracy theorists" (misinformation) and damage is a slippery slope. Who gets to decide what's damaging "information"? That is the question you're replying to, and you missed that piece - that is not a nuance, but the critical question we should consider when we call for removal of megaphones, censorship and so forth. You mentioned government v. private platforms, and reminded me that those examples I gave of government don't apply. But again I wanted to point out the examples of the "who" part, and the same argumentation they had "this _ is harmful" where _ is art, or books, or speech. Who bloody decides what is true and false, how do we choose them, and what credentials makes them the choosers? And what if today's choosers and tomorrow's choosers have completely different notions of True and False? You're defending censorship using an ancient argument of "harmful information" that has dangerous downstream effects is the point I am driving at.