I'm hoping we'll get to a point where not making a good faith effort to be factually correct will be seen as equally bad as censorship.
They're both just tactics used to decieve.
The internet is this amazing tool for building knowledge and we seen to be arguing about who is allowed to tell lies rather than collaborating on how to discover truth.
It's simple basic things like citing sources that need to become norms.
Citing sources doesn't solve the problem on its own, but we're in such a poor state at the moment that it (and other very basic changed) would still be a massive improvement.
You already get people citing things they clearly haven't read, but again, that's still better than not even citing something as it gives a basis to work towards the truth.
I've been in plenty of discussions where a cited source exists as a basis to work toward nothing.
It's a common tactic to use citations to get the person you are arguing with to walk in circles. It's a war of attrition: eventually the other party gives up on deconstructing and criticizing your citations, and you claim victory. This is closely related to the "ball is in your court" fallacy.
But if both parties are actually invested in critical thought, citations can be an opportunity instead of a roadblock. That still requires the effort of everyone involved.
They're both just tactics used to decieve.
The internet is this amazing tool for building knowledge and we seen to be arguing about who is allowed to tell lies rather than collaborating on how to discover truth.
It's simple basic things like citing sources that need to become norms.