Technology

I don't have any trust whatsoever for any company, or the government, to be the decider of what counts as "mis/disinformation".

Sometimes there are easy layups, like "the Holocaust did not happen" and "Vaccines have 5G chips inside them" which are obviously just wrong and I think most of us would agree not to have...

But what about "The Holocaust was overblown and the jews should stop whining about it"? I and probably 99% of people would say that's a stupid opinion, but is that "misinformation"? Should a company be allowed to ban you for saying it?

How about things like the 13/52 statistic? Should that be removed? What about "42% of all transgenders commit suicide"? That's used to attack that group a lot, should that be banned as well?

And, to be honest with you, the Democratic Party is absolutely obsessed with using clinical terms like those mentioned to stifle all discussion and act like they are the only voice on the issue you're allowed to believe. Republicans freak out about this for good reason.

It's always the Democratic side that gets conservative opinions that they think are bad (whether lies or otherwise), boot them off the platform, and then decide to trample all over their new platforms and get them killed off too. It's never just "pRiVaTe CoMpAnY tHeY cAn dO WhAt ThEy WaNt MaKe YoUr oWn WeBsiTE", it's "you are not allowed to have a place to speak this idea that I think is bad for society anywhere on the internet". I really, really do not want to embolden that sect more than they already are.

Just make a nonprofit third party that is as not biased as possible that you can search through with article links that can break down misinformation. Kind of like reverse image search but for articles that pulls up the article score.

Well it's likely because both sides have seen instances where something that is absolutely true be silenced with a "disinformation" or "false news" justification. In recent memory, it has been more "left supporting" news stories that have been silenced than "right supporting" ones that have been falsely silenced. But in recent memory:

• Joe Biden's son's laptop. Later confirmed to not be Russian and to be accurate.
• Various emails from the Clinton Campaign being leaked. Claimed to be faked but largely proven accurate at the time of the leak (via DKIM) and with future legal action.
• Several stories about Biden's declining health. Some of these during the primary pissed of the Bernie wing of the party for being silenced, some during the general pissed off Trump supporters. Biden is 80 years old. Everyone 80 years old has declining health but discussion of it was generally verboten.
• "Lab Leak Hypothesis" Still not proven true or false but believable enough that several government agencies believe it to be credible.
• Origins of the "Russia Collision" story being a person affiliated with Clinton/DNC.

And there's a long list of obviously biased "fact checkers" making obvious mistakes. Like claiming Romney was lieing when he accurately predicted the outcome of Obamacare a claim that they would call the lie of the year on behalf Obama for repeating in 2013. I pick on polifact for being left leaning but there's similar right wing "fact checkers" doing similarly biased fact checks.