[dahart]

Not disagreeing, but your comment leaves me with a lot of questions...

What would be the difference in this argument between 'social media' and other media? For example, should the same be true of newspapers? What about scientific or government publications?

If people should be allowed to decide for themselves what is true, should private for-profit companies also be allowed to decide what is true for themselves?

Do you consider stories that are verifiably false to be "unfiltered information"? Why should it be considered "information" if it's not true? Does it matter if the information being presented was known to be false and is being published for subversive politically motivated reasons?

Is your framing that they're saying people are dumb really true if the "information" is difficult or impossible to verify? Does it matter if it's a breaking story and there's only one such source of information? Does it matter if, statistically, there's a sizeable portion of smart people that will accept published stories as true?