The bigger problem is when platforms block the content. In this case very few people will hear about the conspiracy theory. So then few will know that this is something worth investigating. This dramatically hinders research into the (potentially true) conspiracy theory.

I have less of a problem with marking things as unfounded if they are actually unfounded. I wouldn't use the term misleading because not all unfounded claims are false. There's still a lot of gray area here. Maybe the person in charge of making those judgements is not a subject matter expert. Or maybe the person making the claim has some additional information that cannot be revealed. (Perhaps they are inside the organization and cannot leak too much or they will be caught.)

I would set the bar for marking things as misleading as requiring evidence to the contrary. I think it is fine to mark things as lacking evidence, as long as that can be established fairly and reliably. I have my doubts that this can be done reliably, but as long as there is no blocking occurring, I think the harm of a mistake is minimized. Anyone claiming to be an impartial subject matter expert capable of making these judgements should provide evidence of that claim.

> But do you agree we should stop it when their instrument of voicing said opinion goes from online forum to pitchforks and firearms?

Sure, believing any conspiracy theory is not a justification for breaking the law.

> If so, where do you propose the line exists?

The line is already clearly defined by the law. Ranting on Facebook about conspiracies (true or not) is legal. Nonviolent protests are legal. Storming the Capitol obviously isn't.

>If so, where do you propose the line exists?

The line is drawn where an actual crime is committed.

I'm not really a fan of pre-crime control measures, but that's a personal opinion.

On the 14th of June 2017, a gunman radicalized by Facebook shot a member of Congress, Steve Scalise, after asking about his political affiliation. This actual shooting which actually left Scalise in hospital fighting for his life with serious internal injuries which required multiple life-saving operations did not lead to any of the media hand-wringing about political violence that the storming of the Capitol - where the members of Congress who "feared for their lives" were barracaded securely away from the supposed potential threat, and the only person who got shot was one of the people storming the building - did. Instead, the Democrats and publications like the New York Times pushed a completely false narrative that actually, Scalise and his party were the ones that inspired the shooting of a member of Congress, falsely blaming the shooting of Gabby Giffords on them when in reality that had nothing to do with national partisan politics at all.

This isn't even a "both sides" thing, because I'm pretty sure there isn't any actual equivalent of the attack on Scalise but on the other side. It stands almost entirely alone in recent US political history, a uniquely awful example of America's political polarisation turning into a justification for violence and attempted assassination that came incredibly close to succeeding. (Also, I would be shocked if one of the things that radicalized the attacker wasn't false claims of presidential election rigging, just because they were so utterly pervasive on social media amongst people with his political affiliation back then.)

All the mainstream American media narratives about the dangers of political violence have nothing to do with actual political violence. It's a weapon they use against the political side they oppose and stop caring about or even become apologists for when the side they support is carrying out the violence.

Then we would just have the same fight over what is considered evidence.

Not that I believe the election was stolen, but I think the lab leak is the most credible, to a great degree because it was censored so badly earlier.

I disagree it's clear that any hypothetical censorship of "conspiracy theories that are false" wouldn't later be used on "conspiracy theories that are true".

There is obviously no clear delineation between these two categories and the censors (ie government or big tech) would be incentivized to bill some instances of the latter category as the former.