For most of my life I’ve been a bit of a free speech absolutist. I believe, or maybe believed, that even idiots had the right to free speech. You want to deny the holocaust or believe the earth is flat? You are an idiot. You are free to express your beliefs and people are free to ridicule your unsubstantiated beliefs. You want to share your stupidity, go ahead and do so to the cost of your social credibility.

But social media has changed, or is changing, my view. If you wanted to stand on a soap box and share dumb ideas, you will likely be ridiculed in the community you live in, and no one will take you seriously. You will essentially ostracize yourself and your message would fade as people got fed up listening to your nonsense.

But move from a town square to the metaphorical global town hall of Twitter and Facebook, and suddenly you get these echo chambers of stupidity that feed off of each other. Throw religious absolutists into the mix and some really silly beliefs start to get amplified. Essentially, there is an opportunity for idiots to find their tribe.

“A theory isn’t a fact,” is a common theme used to debunk scientific explanations. But then pseudo facts that are invented by these people are not held to nearly the same standard. So, on social media, bad ideas spread, gain popularity, and start to build an audience of believers. Instead of ridicule, these fools find a community. Instead of being ostracized, these morons find followers.

So the incentives are there to be inauthentic and to spread misinformation, instead of the disincentives of ridicule and shame. And so absolute freedom of speech no longer has the consequences it once had, and bad information ends up spreading faster than good information.

Even the debunkers and scientific thinkers speaking out against these charlatans peddling misinformation end up feeding the algorithm that puts the bad messages in front of more people. So bad ideas get spread, and this happens at a faster rate than good ideas.

I don’t know how to fix this, and I struggle to think that censorship is the answer. But allowing bad ideas to spread freely seems wrong too. Who decides? Who censors? What criteria do we use? The reality is that censorship is a slippery slope… but we are already on a slippery slope where the current social media models and the algorithms that promote more time on these apps already seem to favour the spread of bad ideas. And the tools used to elevate ideas effectively are being used to share and amplify bad ideas faster than good ones.

Ultimately, despite this, I am still a free speech absolutist. I just think free speech and the right to an audience are two different things. How we police this is not something I think can or will be solved any time soon.