Post

This is the "game theory" of the "free market place of ideas". It's like questioning the legality of stop lights because they limit your freedoms. Coordination in a shared space requires rules to maximize efficiency. It's the "tragedy of the commons" of "free speech".

When pundits ask the wrong question, they are participating in a game. The game is a stop light, and they do not hesitate to run the red light. There are no consequences. In fact, they're often rewarded. Perverse incentive structures exist in every game.

To reward Player 2 with no punishment, while they routinely "tat" out of self-interest is akin to not punishing people for driving recklessly. See: "tit for tat" systems. The questions they ask serve their interests; e.g. shadow money from the Russian state funding "US influencers".