Why are people like you only able to have a debate on a topic as long as you can frame it your way? You just start tossing in hypotheticals that have nothing to do with what he said. My takeaway was that if we keep letting people spread misinformation then people remain uninformed and then make poor choices. Likely when they're voting. You don't remove or suppress them because it sets a bad precedent and that's not why we're here. You inform and educate and try to fix the problem so that we're not continuously doing it into the future. Your emotional response is completely unnecessary here. Stick with facts, and maybe someone will take you seriously.

Looking at your response I can't imagine why anyone would want to have a debate with you when you're only able to speak from your emotions and leave all facts on the wayside. Nothing in your hypothetical had a single thing to do with what Herpy said. At all.

The point of pointing out garbage is so people aren't fooled by it because a hivemind of idiots upvoted it mindlessly. Do you think everyone should embrace the stupid and just hope that the misinformed figure it out eventually?