[yuvalr1]

The root problem is how to decide what idea is incorrect. Usually this is decided by a public debate, where multiple people express their opinions, and the issue is concluded after reading and being exposed to the different perspectives. The problem with social media platforms censorship is that it is decided very quickly by a small group of people, without understanding the full scope of perspectives on the matter.

This is why:

> you stop the spread of incorrect ideas

is a dangerous method - you do stop the spread, but who says you do it right?

[BryantD]

I'd argue that it's rarely been decided by a public debate. It's traditionally been decided by (for example) the small number of companies who are in the business of publishing textbooks. Or the small number of people who teach law at prestigious universities. Or the small number of people who decide which textbooks will be bought in Texas, particularly since Texas is a large enough market so that this decision affects other states as well. Or religious figures, laying down a decision about what doctrine can be taught in churches.

Obviously in the past these small groups of people have made the wrong decision, and sometimes that's had very bad consequences. I am not arguing that this is a good methodology. I am arguing that we can't assume that public debate will generate a better set of decisions.

[badconvincer]

At some point, even though all of this is subjective, it’s common sense and we can go back and forth on this endlessly but it’s wholly apparent that false conspiracies that threaten the stability of the best society the world has seen should not be encouraged. So most of us, and the people in power make that decision especially given that the company is private and they can do what they want.