[beat]

I don't think I'm ignoring the cost. Rather, I'm thinking that it's the mechanism most likely to arrive at a correct conclusion. Think of scientific method, by comparison... it's slow, inefficient, and expensive, but it's more likely to be correct than common sense is, and certainly more likely to be correct than faith or ideology.

Leaving it to "experts", and shushing the rabble, makes you vulnerable to the experts. At which point, you want experts you agree with and don't want those you disagree with, based on your lack of expertise. This is just a triumph of authoritarianism and ideology. Which, if it turns out to be correct, is awesome. But what if it's wrong?

This is where Dunning-Krueger shows up uninvited...

[deogeo]

Restrictions on speech are usually less about arriving at a correct conclusion, and more on serving those in power. See Ag-gag laws, China and Russia, the since overturned criminalization of inciting people to resist the draft in the US (that gave us the "fire in a crowded theater" quote), the un-American Activities Committee, and all manner of state-sponsored propaganda.

To ask "will they get it right?" is misleading - they won't even try.

[beat]

Heh. And I was trying to be polite about it, but you're absolutely right.