Preserving Autonomy and Discourse in the Age of Online Misinformation

Fake news is defined as fabricated information made public with the intention to deceive. As of 2025, the majority of individuals utilise social media, with the most popular social media platforms, Facebook and Youtube, collectively serving 5.6 billion users across a diverse range of demographics, making regulating a pressing concern. 

Authoritarian regimes – like China’s Great Firewall demonstrate a tightly controlled domestic internet. China utilises AI and a two-million-strong cyber-army to censor dissent, and in Iran, the Iranian Government has blocked over 70% of the internet. On the other hand, democratic systems in nations like the European Union impose regulations that require platforms to be held accountable for content moderation, ensuring the user’s safety , while maintaining an open online platform environment (European Commission). These contrasting systems pose the question of: whether and to what extent should free discovery be restricted to prevent the spread and intake of false information? 

This paper argues that governments should not regulate what is shared on social media to prevent the spread of false information, as such interference risks compromising an individual's autonomy and consumption of ideas. These concepts are conveyed through a cornerstone to philosophy – which states that the only justification for restricting an individual’s liberty is to prevent direct harm to others (Mill). Following this fundamental tenet, authoritarian approaches to controlling social media in order to prevent the spread of misinformation lacks vindication. 

Mill’s principle justifies restrictions only when it poses clear, imminent and direct harm to others, a requirement that fake news fails to meet consistently (University of Texas). For instance, misinformation regarding health technologies have severely impacted decision making, and disrupted public trust. However, its impacts are often speculative. An example of this would be vaccine misinformation during the pandemic. A report published in 2021 by the World Health Organisation stated that with a disease outbreak comes “an overabundance of information — some accurate, some not”. They argue that the spread of vaccine misinformation on online platforms contributed to lower vaccination rates in certain regions, indirectly causing approximately 6,000 hospitalizations and 800 deaths. Despite this fact, these tragedies do not align with the legal definition of direct harm, as they have also been impacted by external factors. These factors consist of individual choices, social context and other factors outside of the author's control, and shows that this harm is not caused solely by misinformation itself, eliminating the possibility of it being a direct harm. 

Moreover, individuals bear the responsibility to employ fact checking methods, to have access to all information, and make informed decisions based on what they are shown. This is reflected in "Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals" , the philosophical work by Immanuel Kent. This book is considered a cornerstone of modern ethical thought, and emphasizes the concept of self governance, arguing that rational human beings have the capacity to create their own moral laws and act in accordance with them (Kant). Thus, enabling them to exercise their own decisions that arise from independent reasoning. In many instances, news is subjective, and what one individual sees as “misleading” may be another individual’s truth (Rohan). For example, political opinions, scientific debates, and many other topics can be viewed through different perspectives, depending on factors like ideological or cultural stances. Therefore, citizens should have the freedom to judge information themselves, referring to prior beliefs and current stances on the topic, to draw their own conclusion without state interference.

Similarly, “On Liberty” by Mill asserts that the exposure to diverse ideas – even false ones, are valuable, and play a significant role in developing critical thinking skills, allowing truth to emerge amidst open discourse (Mill). For example, amidst the 2020 U.S elections, misinformation online triggered voter fraud conspiracies, inciting the Capitol riot, and disrupting trust in democratic institutions. In this instance, regulating content shared online seems like the most appropriate choice. However Mill’s philosophy counters that suppressing individual opinions on a digital platform slows intellectual growth. The 2020 election misinformation was resolved not through formal government regulation: independent fact-checking organisations, media outlets, and online platforms like X labeled disruptive posts, and were able to clarify misconceptions. These non-regulatory mechanisms, combined with public discourse, led to a 20% increase in trust in the election process (The Centre of Election and Innovation Research). This resolution exemplifies Mill’s marketplace of ideas, where individual truth prevails through open scrutiny rather than censorship. By allowing individuals to foster critical engagement with falsehoods, public discussion aligns with Mill’s beliefs, ensuring intellectual vitality and democratic resilience. 

This concept has laid the groundwork for addressing moral dilemmas surrounding false information, and leads us to believe that government regulation of content shared on social media risks eliminating ultimate discourse. By eliminating perspectives they deem “incorrect”, governments risk restricting the free exchange of ideas that has historically resulted in revolutionary advancements. For instance, the civil rights movement initially gained momentum due to citizens utilising unregulated modes of communication to participate in various acts of activism such as pamphlets, newsletters, and public speeches to advocate against racial discrimination. This free exchange of ideas allowed for marginalised and conflicting voices to bypass media regulations, challenging structural injustices, eventually leading to societal change. Without the freedom to explore alternative perspectives, critical thinking – the catalyst of innovation is stunted, as individuals have lessened opportunities to explore new viewpoints which may lead to the questioning of established norms and major improvements to society. Thus, allowing governments to regulate information shared on social media may lead to the suppression of fresh, controversial ideas, ultimately diminishing the intellectual progress needed for an innovative future. 

In conclusion, cornerstone philosophies of autonomy and the exchange of ideas, essential for innovation – as seen in the past, reject government regulation of social media. Most importantly, over 64% of American citizens indicated that they do not trust the government to regulate what is shown on social media (Foundation of Independent Rights and Expression). Ultimately, unregulated platforms nurture discussion, amplify underrepresented voices, and empower individuals to challenge societal norms allowing for a more innovative future.