The article fails to make a distinction between misinformation (untruthful, false information that is spread, regardless of intent to mislead) and disinformatio

The article fails to make a distinction between misinformation (untruthful, false information that is spread, regardless of intent to mislead) and disinformation (dishonest, deliberately misleading or biased information). All disinformation is misinformation *, but not all misinformation is disinformation. And I don't see how a comparison with drugs is helpful. There are two things that can be done: One is requiring misinformation to be corrected, with penalties for disinformation. This won't be popular with free speech advocates, but maybe they should reconsider whether malicious lies (which have adverse consequences) ought to be protected. There's also the more practical problem that the disinformation might not be detected, or detected too late. The other is to ensure that people are educated from an early age to spot dubious information and fallacious reasoning, and learn how to fact-check sources. An understanding of science (along with its acceptance of being proven wrong), history, and folklore is also helpful. * There are rare exceptions to this.