Hard disagree. We can censor, for example, child pornography, bomb-building tutorials, and revenge porn. I'm not going to fight against censoring them on the grounds that allowing them to be censored will allow anything else to be censored too.
Leaning on a company to eliminate speech is censorship without review.
edit: removed extra word
None of these things are misinformation.
The first is that prosecutions are retrospective. If something is true and you can't stop anyone from saying it, only punish them after, then people who are willing to sacrifice their freedom for the truth can't be silenced. There is also less incentive to punish them because the cat is already out of the bag, and people are more willing to push back against a prosecution for speaking a truth that they've seen survive an adversarial public debate.
The second is that prosecutions happen in courts bound (in the US) by the First Amendment, and the prosecution fails if the defendant was engaged in protected speech. Facebook or Comcast/MSNBC (note: the same company) deciding what constitutes "misinformation" with no accountability for over-censoring is not that.
The latter type of lie incites people to insurrection and riles up violence, the other two cause people to do things that may kill themselves or others.
Same for false cures to diseases, nobody imprisons pseudoscience witch doctors for recommending vitamins to cure cancer. (Maybe if they claimed to be a medical doctor?) If that were so, I know of a half dozen people in Boulder that would’ve been in jail by now. Certainly no court had convicted any of these people of a crime prior to censorship.
So, as far as I can tell, these people had been censored without having committed (or at least convicted of) a crime.
False cures for diseases, yes, people absolutely go to jail or receive massive fines. Sometimes on charges of fraud, sometimes on charges of endangerment. If your fake cure doesn't actually do harm (and is just useless) then you can usually get away with it. A quick google search will show you multiple stories about criminal charges for fake covid cures.
Do drawings count? How about deepfakes? Pyrotechnic display textbooks?
You're going to need a judge, and that judge is going to wield power.
You disagree with letting censorship be decided on democratically?
This is how you get people shouting about how a democratically elected president, who was given, by a democratically elected congress, powers to operate a regulatory department, is acting undemocratic-ally [1], when he appoints someone those people don't like to head that department.
What those people forget is that in a democracy, you can't in good faith cherrypick outcomes as 'undemocratic'. You can only ensure that the process for making changes is democratic. If the people you elect decided to turn your country into a police state, well, that sucks, but that's a democratic decision that they've made - and as long as you can vote them out, it can be democratically reversed. Prohibition was reversed, after all, communist witch hunts eventually ended, it's no longer illegal to ride in a train car while black, people in the US are no longer jailed for writing pro-German newspaper articles, and we no longer round up entire ethnic groups, and concentrate them in a camp (Which are all hallmarks of a police state. They are no longer present in our society, thanks in part to a democratic process. Other hallmarks still are, but if enough people care, we'll eventually get around to them.)
[1] Despite neither the constitution, the law that brought that department into existence, the judiciary, nor years of precedent requiring that the department must be ran by an elected official, or that the department's every decision [2] must be voted on by Congress.
[2] As it turns out, it's quite democratic for an elected official to defer decision-making to an un-elected underling. That's fine. What makes this democratic, is that you can punish the elected official, if the underling behaves poorly, by voting them out. As long as all power flows from an elected office, this thing works. What is not fine is if the un-elected underling is not appointed, or fire-able by an elected office, or by an agent of an elected office. That's where the difference between democratic, and undemocratic lies.
> democratically elected president
That's not really what I was talking about.