>"This is a tricky problem and simplistic solutions like "there should be no fact checking and no limits" can lead to grave real world consequences." This exac

>"This is a tricky problem and simplistic solutions like "there should be no fact checking and no limits" can lead to grave real world consequences." This exact statement has been uttered by every ruler in history since the invention of the printing press. (the most popular printed books of the day, other than the bible, were books on identifying witches) If you insist that there be a regulation on what information can be distributed, you have no choice but to put certain people in charge of making these decisions. Sure, you can make them into committees, and have them follow processes, but at the end of the day somebody is paying them, and therefore they are subject to corrupting forces. The consequence of free dissemination of information isn't heaven, or perfect. It can lead to horrible things. But the consequences of controlling and limiting information by some central arbiter has always led to hell. When in history can you point to a censorship regime and say "yeah, those were the good guys."??? No matter how benevolent the intention, censorship infrastructure has always been hijacked by the powerful for their own interests.