So the state wants to decide what is truth and what is not... What should be shared and what should not? I wonder how that can go badly? Maybe this one time in

So the state wants to decide what is truth and what is not... What should be shared and what should not? I wonder how that can go badly? Maybe this one time in history we will make that notion work... I would say the above statement is sarcastic, but if at this point people actually believe this is a good idea I would either question the history or civics education quality or the hypocrisy tolerance perception. I claim this is a surefire way to create more instability, undermine democracy and straight out attack the most fundamental right in a democratic setting: free speech. (Also, personally, extremely insulting to any scientist to have truth dictated.) So what: some people/bots act maliciously and spread disinformation. Put a disclaimer. Teach your people to be critical and better. Recall how the state screwed up in the past. There were states that in law stated if you orgasm it couldn't have been a rape. There are states that mishandled the pandemic, and botched the messaging. Perception of speech is extremely subjective and cultural. You only create extreme views by censoring -- you are banning collaboration. The U.S. has an extreme Political correctness approach, that has only harmed democracy in my book in the end. Communication is for reaching consensus. You can't be "diversity is great" and "if you say X that is disagreeable to me you are terrible." Pick one. If someone, including state actors, screws up and causes damage with their speech, get them charged for the appropriate crime -- and even then I would say "maybe." That is what should be in question and up for discussion and debate. That some people in DHS even considered this should get them fired (at least); how is this not a crime subverting the U.S. constitution? (my) Theorem: Sure words can hurt temporarily. Lack of works is fatal.