Obviously problematic is a spectrum. Banning them is problematic too. But yes, conspiracy theories are problematic. They lead to poorly informed decisions such as anti-vac and asian discrimination and anti-semitism.
Some conspiracy theories turn out to be true. Suppressing research into these would also lead to poorly informed decisions. For example, government mass surveillance on the scale revealed by Snowden was considered a conspiracy theory before the proof emerged.
So I would disagree that "conspiracy theories are problematic." Some are problematic, but there are also some that turn out to be extremely important. No progress is made without questioning authority and the status quo.
Needing to have evidence to not have your theory marked as misleading doesn't disincentivize research into conspiracies. It does the opposite. There would be more research into these theories so that their purveyors could say them without being labeled misleading. Anyone would still be able to do their own research under this model too, they would hopefully just know not to blindly believe what they read.
Investigating wrongdoing and backing up findings with evidence is extremely important. Spouting unfounded lies is not.
The bigger problem is when platforms block the content. In this case very few people will hear about the conspiracy theory. So then few will know that this is something worth investigating. This dramatically hinders research into the (potentially true) conspiracy theory.
I have less of a problem with marking things as unfounded if they are actually unfounded. I wouldn't use the term misleading because not all unfounded claims are false. There's still a lot of gray area here. Maybe the person in charge of making those judgements is not a subject matter expert. Or maybe the person making the claim has some additional information that cannot be revealed. (Perhaps they are inside the organization and cannot leak too much or they will be caught.)
I would set the bar for marking things as misleading as requiring evidence to the contrary. I think it is fine to mark things as lacking evidence, as long as that can be established fairly and reliably. I have my doubts that this can be done reliably, but as long as there is no blocking occurring, I think the harm of a mistake is minimized. Anyone claiming to be an impartial subject matter expert capable of making these judgements should provide evidence of that claim.
"the election was rigged" is essentially unfalsifiable. If you stop people from saying it when it isn't true, you'll also inevitably silence people from saying it if it ever becomes true in the future.
To me, the latter is too big a price to pay for the former.
On the 14th of June 2017, a gunman radicalized by Facebook shot a member of Congress, Steve Scalise, after asking about his political affiliation. This actual shooting which actually left Scalise in hospital fighting for his life with serious internal injuries which required multiple life-saving operations did not lead to any of the media hand-wringing about political violence that the storming of the Capitol - where the members of Congress who "feared for their lives" were barracaded securely away from the supposed potential threat, and the only person who got shot was one of the people storming the building - did. Instead, the Democrats and publications like the New York Times pushed a completely false narrative that actually, Scalise and his party were the ones that inspired the shooting of a member of Congress, falsely blaming the shooting of Gabby Giffords on them when in reality that had nothing to do with national partisan politics at all.
This isn't even a "both sides" thing, because I'm pretty sure there isn't any actual equivalent of the attack on Scalise but on the other side. It stands almost entirely alone in recent US political history, a uniquely awful example of America's political polarisation turning into a justification for violence and attempted assassination that came incredibly close to succeeding. (Also, I would be shocked if one of the things that radicalized the attacker wasn't false claims of presidential election rigging, just because they were so utterly pervasive on social media amongst people with his political affiliation back then.)
All the mainstream American media narratives about the dangers of political violence have nothing to do with actual political violence. It's a weapon they use against the political side they oppose and stop caring about or even become apologists for when the side they support is carrying out the violence.
> But do you agree we should stop it when their instrument of voicing said opinion goes from online forum to pitchforks and firearms?
Sure, believing any conspiracy theory is not a justification for breaking the law.
> If so, where do you propose the line exists?
The line is already clearly defined by the law. Ranting on Facebook about conspiracies (true or not) is legal. Nonviolent protests are legal. Storming the Capitol obviously isn't.
> you'll also inevitably silence people from saying it if it ever becomes true in the future.
Clearly not - we know that it is possible for elections to be fraudulent and people can talk about it. We don't yet live in a post-truth society. Evidence counts.
I disagree it's clear that any hypothetical censorship of "conspiracy theories that are false" wouldn't later be used on "conspiracy theories that are true".
There is obviously no clear delineation between these two categories and the censors (ie government or big tech) would be incentivized to bill some instances of the latter category as the former.
I just want extraordinary claims without evidence to be marked as such. If you want to claim the election is rigged you should need some evidence. At that point everyone can make an informed decision about if they believe the claim is true.