Earlier quoted context omitted.
The premise that good ideas that make sense end up winning is unfortunately false. Many bad ideas tend to have a remarkably long half-life, and generally they can exhibit much greater virality at the network level.
You fight misinformation with more information, not censorship. Unless you're saying other people are so stupid we need to control their content so they can make the right choices? At that moment, let's just keep everyone in a jail cell so they don't hurt themselves. Who is the arbiter of truth? The government? You?
This is a flawed model. At some point, there is so much information that nobody can conceivably consume it all. A better mental model for this dynamic is that of pollution: can you fight pollution by making more "stuff", or at some point does it make sense to try and clean out the junk?
> Unless you're saying other people are so stupid we need to control their content so they can make the right choices?
Yes, to some degree. I think we need to be cautious here, and I acknowledge that there are a lot of examples of how this can go wrong.
But yes, yes indeed. If people were smarter, propaganda would not work. Alas propaganda works, and it works frighteningly well. There are also plenty of examples of this in both the modern world and in History.
> At that moment, let's just keep everyone in a jail cell so they don't hurt themselves.
Now you're being a little hysterical.
> Who is the arbiter of truth? The government? You?
This might shock you, but no, and we don't need an "arbiter". Getting to the "truth" is to a large extent a decentralized process that should involve many people and communities. I would suggest that a good place to start is with the scientific consensus. For everything else, it certainly becomes a lot more complicated.