> In many scenarios that we experience every day, we would be better served by accepting censure over misinformation.
No. Not at all. I refuse your premise. Not only you are begging the question here (what scenarios? Your example was terrible and I really don't think you can come up with a good one), I honestly worry more about those that believe this rhetoric than the "victims" of misinformation.
Also, it's curious how those that so easily accept censorship never think that they will eventually be on the wrong side of the taser gun.
> I agree with you in theory. But in practice this is impossible. The human brain is physically unable to work everything through from first principles.
Good thing then that this is NOT WHAT I AM SAYING.
There is no need to "work though things from first principles". The idea is NOT to determine a priori what is "right" or "safe" and then make a binary decision. The base idea is to decide on what action to take (or to refuse to take) by asking yourself what is the worst possible thing that can happen if the information I have is wrong? What are the odds of me being wrong?.
I'd suggest you get acquainted with Nassim Taleb and Joe Norman to understand better how to deal with complexity and uncertainty.
> In practice they have turned people against each other with very real and serious consequences.
Bullshit. There was no Facebook during the time of the Crusades. There was no Twitter during the Cold War and no smartphones during WW1 and WW2. None of these things would be avoidable if only we could censor wrongthink.
On the other hand, THERE ARE video records of Tienanmen Square who have been successfully hidden from an entire country for an entire generation.
(Sorry for the harsh language, but I start reading any kind of censorship-apologetic and fighting instincts kick in. If you don't see how much of a sign of being morally bankrupt it is to casually defend the hellish things like state-sponsored censorship, I see no point in continuing the "debate")