Only the censors agree with this? What kind of rhetoric is that? So I am a censor if I think misinformation is a problem? This essay is much more thought out and rational than your flame-bait response.
That misinformation is a problem doesn't make censorship a solution. By the time you have to shut people down from saying stupid things you're already far gone down the clusterfuck path. (and that's assuming the 'misinformation' is true false&harmful beliefs, not just whatever idea that contradicts the fashionable Current Thing.)
Let's say that people think MD5 is a good cryptographic hash function. The worst single possible thing you can do is ban-hammer the promoters of this idea away. This is extremely dumb "Kill The Messenger" thinking, the promoters of those idea are exposing real communication problems (namely, the use of "hash function" to denote roughly similar concepts but are also very different in very important details). What you do, if you really think this Md5-is-cryptographically-secure problem is serious, is that you treat the success of the promoters of this false idea as a measure for how hard you failed to communicate basic cryptography to software devs. Do a modification to your education\media ecosystem, then measure how successful the false prophets are, if their success goes up or stays constant then you still haven't addressed the real problem, if it goes down then you're successfully fighting "misinformation", repeat till you drive their popularity to the ground.
The flame bait response, as you put it, is more terse than the article. We’ve seen the appeal to authority and the censoring of those who questioned the science writ large over Covid. We’ve seen it heavily on this platform. Censoring things that have facts is wrong.
