"But do we?" is I guess my point. There's a lot of intent and, again, determining what the "truth" (or even truthful) is that stands in the way. It's a very complicated problem I feel doesn't really have a solution. To be clear I'm not knocking you, I agree with you, I just worry about how it plays out writ large.

If one person says and insists on air that "WWII began when Germany invaded Poland," but someone else insists on air that "WWII began with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria," do we force them to acknowledge the other viewpoint as valid? Do we say only one is correct? It seems a bit ridiculous I admit, but just substitute the example for something more stark I guess. Do we have to decide "well this is debate and this is other thing is fact" and see where the chips fall? Feels like we're trading problems there too.

Imagine trying to say "coal and petroleum are bad for the environment and contributing to climate change." "Certain outlets" balk at the claim and say "you're wrong and lying and corrupt and bribed, it's not leading to climate change and even if it did it's not enough to matter." To me that's patently absurd, yet they downplay it all the time and throw all sorts of nasty allegations out there. Where's the line? Do we fine them? Censor them? Let them be because "it's a debate," even if their claim is incredibly fringe and lacking quality evidence? I don't know the answer to be honest. I'd love to pull the plug on them but that's a dangerous door to open.

I hope this stream of conscience makes sense. I'm enjoying this conversation!