I understand how coordinated disingenuous information is dangerous to society. But censorship of things like hateful speech (short of calls to violence which ar

I understand how coordinated disingenuous information is dangerous to society. But censorship of things like hateful speech (short of calls to violence which are illegal for good reason) or political misinformation has historically been abused. Even when we put that power in the hands of a transparent democratic or crowd-sourced non-governmental body we see minority views quashed by associating them with more obviously bad actors. Peer review has shown in the past the problems with letting group think suppress papers we found decades later to be accurate. I think we should use lower barriers to entry and try to create as many information outlets as possible while also using policy to make the economic or political interests behind those information sources more apparent both through financing laws and identification requirements. Free speech is one thing, anonymous free speech is another. Apart from policy, I think we should be more forgiving to those who feel differently on issues, even when we find them very important. I have some racist neighbors, and some that are prejudiced against people of certain (or all) faiths. I still talk with them all, laugh and share a beer with them, and openly disagree with them. I'm not going to try to get them fired, I'm trying to persuade them. And sometimes it works, a little. Technologically I think we have the tools to make following money trails feasible by the public, especially with a few policy changes regarding anonymity, though the scotus has made that much more difficult. If we reject anonymous donations from everyone, that would affect corporations too right? Simce they are people?