> "misinformation" is indistinguishable from "thinks I think are false" which in turn is hard to distinguish from "things I disagree with".

Only if you believe the post-modern claim that there's no objectively verifiable truth and that all narratives are equally valid.

There is a huge difference between "vaccines contain microchips" and "water retains the essence of homeopathic ingredients" on the one hand and "COVID spreads through droplets" on the other.

EDIT: I do agree billionaires shouldn't be the final arbiter, though.

If the billionaire controllers of the tech giants (advertising based services!) aren't doing it, they are simply delegating this to other billionaires who are paying the bills. Like it's often said, 'if you're not paying for it you are the product'. Social media consumers are the target, not the ones directing the narrative.

In the absence of the tech giants choosing what's permissible, you get different other billionaires who can define a benefit to pushing a 'you should drink bleach and overthrow the government' narrative, because THEY are not the 'you' referred to, plus it ain't their government.

Acting like that's an organic social narrative is malpractice.

Can't both things be true simultaneously?

a. there is objective truth

b. it's not a good thing for billionaires to determine what is censored

To me, there isn't an inherent conflict.

I think we (the collective) keep dancing around the issue. Essentially, perhaps it is time for advertising agencies and corporate users of social media to be regulated like news publishers. At least there, there's some expectation that they don't misrepresent facts. One could argue news regulation is also on the decline.

The next step is asking ourselves whether social media made everyone a "journalist" of sorts, and how that should be regulated. After all, taking on corporate entities alone wouldn't have stopped QAnon.