For a statement such as

Putin is a thief.

my standard approach is to follow the old, standard

"The burden of proof is on the proposer."

Or, it is not up to me to try to debunk such a claim. And I'm not obligated either to debunk the claim or accept it.

So I want to discard essentially all claims that don't come with solid information, the "proof".

Right, such proof can be good stuff in pure math and in parts of mathematical physics but less good elsewhere.

If there is a claim such as

The tap water is toxic.

as long as we have sources of safe water, we might make a decision to avoid the tap water and go with the safe water until we have more evidence about the tap water.

And that is where it seems we are stuck on practical decision methodology and procedures.

> "The burden of proof is on the proposer."

Yeah, but what's a proof? What if Putin try to poison Navalny (as he did), but will deny it? Everybody believes that, but there is no proof that he is in charge.

Does it mean that this is misinformation until proven otherwise, and Russian censorship is justified?

Your example appears to be similar to my example of the tap water: In a case of a threat but without proof, we may make a decision that will help us be safe.

Otherwise, in a case without threat, we are reluctant to devote the resources to develop a proof and just ignore the claim that has no proof.

so in your world, no one can say or write any claim or statement unless they also prove it?

What about questions or allegations? Can I say to my neighbor: "I think it will rain today" even though I can't prove it.

If that is allowed, can Qanon state "I think Biden is a communist"?

See how restriction of speech is a tricky subject?

Dialectics is a good method for two people who want to uncover the truth of a situation, but judging when two people are engaging in dialectics is subjective so it isn't a suitable tool for politics in the way free speech is.

It is much easier to tell if someone is free to say what they think than it is to tell if they are properly employing dialectic techniques.

> No one said there is a quick formula for this, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.

If you can't tell truth from lies how are you sure something is misinformation?

What's the point of the term misinformation then? Most people agree upon the shape of earth anyway, but questionable topics are questionable due to, you know, lack of persuading argument which would persuade the bulk of people.