Agreed that a black and white approach here doesn't suffice. You can be concerned about over-reach and censorship, and concerned about the propagation of harmfu

Agreed that a black and white approach here doesn't suffice. You can be concerned about over-reach and censorship, and concerned about the propagation of harmful information or misinformation. My question to those screaming censorship, which I have yet to receive a good answer on, is where they draw the line. The well known line for traditional free speech is incitement to violence or shouting fire in a crowded theater. If controlling vaccine misinformation for the sake of public health is censorship, what are the cases where controlling the propagation of patently false information isn't censorship? The internet has opened the floodgates for bad actors to flood the airwaves with bad information, whether for their own gain or for malicious purposes – to the point where the sheer volume of bad information being pumped out makes "countering bad speech with better speech" a losing battle. The algorithmic bias towards controversial topics inherent in the systems we have created are only exacerbating the issue.