Free Speech, Misinformation, and the Bullshit We Tolerate

In democratic and liberal societies, free speech is a foundational value. It protects dissent, enables open dialogue, and guards against authoritarian control. But in recent years, the concept of free speech has been increasingly co-opted and confused—used not to protect expression, but to justify the unchecked spread of misinformation, disinformation, and outright bullshit.

This confusion is more than a misunderstanding—it's a category error. Free speech is a right that protects individuals from censorship by the state. Misinformation, on the other hand, is not speech in the democratic sense—it’s a process: the manipulation and distortion of information, often for political, financial, or ideological gain. It spreads through algorithmic amplification, false equivalence, and strategic ambiguity.

When defenders of misinformation invoke free speech, they often do so superficially, making shallow arguments that don’t examine the structure or function of the information being spread—or the systems that amplify it. They frame any attempt to address or correct falsehoods as censorship. This is not a defense of liberty. It’s a defense of confusion.

To call this move “bullshit” is not a rhetorical flourish. As philosopher Harry Frankfurt outlined, bullshit isn’t about lying or telling the truth—it’s about indifference to the truth. The arguments used to equate free speech with the right to spread misinformation are often indifferent to truth, logic, and consequence. They sound reasonable on the surface, but collapse under scrutiny. They are not designed to clarify, but to obscure.

Here’s the deeper problem: we are not good at identifying bullshit. The idea that people will “just figure out the truth” through open discourse is comforting but wrong. Repeated research shows that we are not primarily rational, truth-seeking agents. We are bias-seeking creatures, drawn to information that affirms our existing beliefs—especially our political and social identities. We share what feels true, not what is true.

And platforms know this.

Social media is not a neutral public square. It is a complex ecosystem built to optimize engagement, not truth. Misinformation spreads because it works—it grabs attention, provokes emotion, and reinforces tribal belonging. The algorithms don’t care if something is true or not; they care if you click, share, or comment.

So when we talk about protecting free speech, we must also talk about what kinds of speech we are protecting, and in what contexts. Preventing the viral spread of falsehoods is not the same as silencing dissent. Building systems to slow down disinformation is not equivalent to censorship. In fact, allowing bad actors to exploit the architecture of free speech to poison public discourse is itself a threat to freedom.

Free speech is worth defending. But we must stop defending bullshit in its name.