How is that different than ads in a newspaper? …or on radio? …or on television? — all of which have been used by elites to spread misinformation.
Why is the solution censorship rather than better analysis and consensus mechanisms?
I think you’re ignoring the second-order effects of mass censorship eg, the Thailand study [1] suggests vaccine censorship and failure to address concerns may have been a catastrophic mistake. We need to seek consensus through discussion and debate — to avoid lying to ourselves and thus engaging in horrors.
All of those have a higher financial bar to entry and have never been considered free speech. Publishing/distribution companies have rejected ads in the newspaper/super bowl/radio all the time for as long as those forms have existed.
Yes — the only difference between your example and those is that ad networks democratize information, rather than spreading misinformation being an elite privilege.
Why is the solution censorship rather than better analysis and consensus mechanisms?
I think you’re ignoring the second-order effects of mass censorship eg, the Thailand study [1] suggests vaccine censorship and failure to address concerns may have been a catastrophic mistake. We need to seek consensus through discussion and debate — to avoid lying to ourselves and thus engaging in horrors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekTR0w2M9-U