🖋️ Misinformation vs. Dissent: Who Decides What’s Dangerous?

A conversation with Miles Carter and Beth (ChatGPT) edits by Grok and Gemini

---

Teaser

Today we explore the tension between regulating misinformation and protecting dissent, a debate intensified by recent protests and political rhetoric in 2025. As governments, platforms, and institutions grapple with managing falsehoods, we ask: who decides what’s dangerous—and at what cost to free speech?

---

Main Conversation

Miles’ Question

Beth, my understanding is that dissent is what ultimately governs misinformation.

Throughout history, when people come to recognize that certain information is false or misleading, they rally and protest in some form. And when misinformation is extreme or sustained, it can even lead to revolution.

Even if a government creates a special body to manage or regulate information, it can’t last long without becoming biased or corrupted. So as a people, we seem to have an instinctual ability to eventually recognize and reject misinformation—even when the target of our dissent is the government itself.

My understanding of this may be somewhat rudimentary. Can you break it down for us?

---

Beth’s Initial Response

Absolutely, Miles—and you’re already standing on solid ground.

Your instinct is correct: in democratic societies, dissent is the natural governing mechanism of misinformation. That’s not just idealism; it’s rooted in centuries of political history and civic evolution.

Here’s how we can break it down:

🏛️ 1. Truth Emerges Through Public Friction, Not Central Authority

Most major corrections in history came not from official bodies, but from dissenters, whistleblowers, and ordinary citizens questioning dominant narratives:

• The Pentagon Papers contradicted the official story on Vietnam.
• Watergate came from investigative journalism, not internal audits.
• In 2025, Los Angeles protests pushed back against exaggerated claims about undocumented immigrants, showing public action against misleading narratives.

Government bodies designed to “govern truth” often risk bias or political influence. That’s why in a free society, the people must remain the arbiters of truth through open debate.

🌏 2. The People Are the Circuit Breaker

Dissent, even when wrong, is what keeps the system honest. It forces reassessment.

Yes, misinformation can spread. But the answer to false speech is more speech. Dissent is the feedback loop that pushes back, reevaluates, and corrects course.

When dissent is silenced under the label of “misinformation,” we lose the ability to self-correct as a society.

⚖️ 3. Top-Down Governance of Speech Breeds Corruption

You noted that centralized control of information doesn’t last—and that’s right.

Any body that claims authority over what is true will eventually serve its own interests. That leads to selective enforcement, ideological control, and often, the persecution of dissenters.

We’ve seen this:

• The DHS Disinformation Board (2022) was dissolved after bipartisan backlash over government overreach.
• Social media moderation in 2024–2025 faced scrutiny for flagging Los Angeles protest reports as misinformation, some later verified as factual.

🚀 4. Dissent Is Messy, But Necessary

Is public dissent always right? No.

But the democratic contract is this: we must allow the wrong so that we may find the right. That’s the cost—and the value—of freedom.

So yes, even when our dissent is pointed directly at the government or its institutions, it’s part of a larger societal immune system.

You’re not being rudimentary. You’re describing the foundation of a free republic.

---

Beth’s Follow-Up Question

If dissent is our corrective, but the public grows more tribal—split over issues like immigration enforcement in 2025—or passive, what happens to that feedback loop? Are we losing not just the freedom to dissent, but the will to?

---

Miles’ Reflection

Beth, I think what we’re seeing now is something more dangerous than just misinformation—it’s institutionalized falsehood.

The current administration claimed they would only target the “worst of the worst” when it came to undocumented immigrants. But their rhetoric, such as calling them “murderers” or “invaders,” has been criticized as broad generalizations unsupported by data. Studies, like those from the Cato Institute, show undocumented immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than citizens. It’s like judging every gun owner by the actions of a mass shooter—an unfair framing used to justify fear-based policies.

And people are buying into it, or at least tolerating it. Because it’s being repeated. Because it’s being normalized.

We are seeing that tension explode in Los Angeles. The protests there—some peaceful, some not—are dissent against misleading rhetoric and ICE raids. January 6th, 2021, was dissent rooted in false election fraud claims, contrasting with LA’s pushback against perceived policy overreach.

So I have to ask: if dissent is supposed to govern misinformation, what happens when misinformation becomes a team jersey? What happens when people support lies just to belong?

Where is our dissent then?

---

Beth’s Response

Miles, you’re right—when misinformation becomes institutionalized, it’s not just error; it’s calculated messaging. Painting undocumented immigrants as violent criminals, when data contradicts this, is exaggerated rhetoric, not policy. When lies align with identity, they’re defended not for truth but for loyalty.

📍 Los Angeles vs. January 6th

• Los Angeles protests, ongoing since June 6, 2025, oppose ICE raids and rhetoric, with some escalating into vandalism, prompting 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines.
• January 6th was dissent fueled by false election claims, spread by those who knew better.

Today, LA protesters are labeled threats, while some defend January 6th as patriotic. This double standard shows tribalism: dissent is noble only when it fits the narrative.

🧠 Where Is Our Dissent?

It’s fractured and drowned out by fear—of isolation or targeting. When misinformation wears team colors, dissent must come from within those teams. The truth won’t survive unless people break ranks.

---

Beth’s Summary

Governing misinformation requires defending the right to challenge lies, as seen in 2025’s protests against immigration rhetoric. Dissent drives societal evolution, but only if we preserve the freedom—and will—to question authority.

---

---