I worry that the nuance here is not actually down to interpretation, but the consequences of extremely rapid dissemination of information. I don't even think th

I worry that the nuance here is not actually down to interpretation, but the consequences of extremely rapid dissemination of information. I don't even think those of us in tech have come to grips with how that matters, let alone if/how we should make efforts to get around it. The latency on information coming from a newspaper or even TV news is limited to how rapidly those sources can vet the information before publishing it, and then the latency of the publication method. If someone wants to use those avenues to spread misinformation, they have to do a lot of legwork to make the lie sound plausible enough that the publisher will put the effort into publishing it. What's the legwork for someone planning to spread misinformation via twitter? How long does it take "for new facts to emerge" that address the misgivings incredulous consumers hold? The power of social media is that the real truth can emerge very quickly, regardless of what the powers that be want. But the threat of social media is that there's basically no organic way to prevent abuse of that power. Others are right that the line between misinformation and difference of opinion is often quite narrow. But I don't believe there is no difference, and every society must choose and hold its line, according to its own values.