The desire to combat false information is understandable. But the history of 'misinformation' censorship reveals a pattern that should alarm anyone who values free inquiry: today's 'misinformation' is often tomorrow's accepted truth.

During COVID-19, social media platforms censored or labeled as misinformation: the lab leak hypothesis for the origin of COVID-19 (now considered plausible by the FBI, DOE, and many scientists); claims that natural immunity provided protection (now confirmed by numerous studies); concerns about vaccine side effects like myocarditis (now acknowledged by the CDC); questioning the effectiveness of cloth masks (now acknowledged as limited by studies including a Cochrane meta-analysis); and the efficacy of school closures (now widely recognized as harmful and ineffective).

The Twitter Files, released in 2022-2023, revealed that government agencies including the FBI, DHS, and the White House actively pressured social media companies to suppress lawful speech. The Missouri v. Biden case found that these government actions likely violated the First Amendment.

The fundamental problem is epistemological: who has the authority to determine truth? Scientists disagree. Experts are wrong. Consensus shifts. The entire history of science is the story of overturning established beliefs. Galileo was censored for heliocentrism. Doctors who proposed hand-washing were ridiculed. Plate tectonics was 'misinformation' for decades.

The marketplace of ideas isn't perfect, but it's the best system humans have devised for separating truth from falsehood. The alternative — empowering governments or corporations to be arbiters of truth — has historically led to propaganda, suppression of dissent, and the entrenchment of powerful interests.

The remedy for speech you disagree with is more speech — better arguments, better evidence, more persuasion. Not silence.