But he was not just saying "yay, doubt!", he was arguing that freedom to doubt was crucial to past progress, and that everyone's then-current state of knowledge

But he was not just saying "yay, doubt!", he was arguing that freedom to doubt was crucial to past progress, and that everyone's then-current state of knowledge was also riddled with error. Do you think this is any less true now? This part acknowledges what seems like your exact concern: > Communications between nations must promote understanding: So went another dream. But the machines of communication can be channeled or choked. What is communicated can be truth or lie. Communication is a strong force also, but for either good or bad. The change of this sort since 1955 that most comes to mind, for me, is that we have more information hazards analogous to "blueprints for a working A-bomb": now we have "genome of smallpox" and (maybe soonish) "algorithm for superhuman intelligence". But it's not like Feynman had no personal acquaintance with that category of hazards; and the current drive for censorship is way way broader. I think his case against it is just as good now, and more needed.