One word : risk. There is uncertainty as to the company’s ability to provide that future revenue and as That uncertainty reduces, the stock price goes up.
Maybe we shouldn't (and a decision algorithm shouldn’t) put absolute (binary) limits on free speech, but should just reduce the exposure of ideas that have no scientific basis. Banning homeopathic information or research for example might mean that we miss out on a new discovery that we can’t measure today. “Turning down the volume” or reducing the ability to transmit ideas that have been proved (at least based on our current knowledge) to be scientifically invalid will stop people being fooled and wasting their money, or worse putting their health at risk.
Similarly requiring proof or evidence for any scientifically-based argument would at least stop charlatans and con-artists for whom the truth is just getting in the way of them making a fast buck.
Finally I want to reference Karl popper’s paradox of tolerance, which states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. In other words, there have to be limits on freedoms of speech. It’s not ok to shout “fire” in a theatre, nor is it ok to encourage your followers to subvert democracy by attempting an insurrection, to take a relevant recent example.
It’s unlikely that a human would be better than an AI at diagnosing covid as we already know that AI outperforms doctors on other diagnoses including breast cancer for example https://www.bbc.com/news/health-50857759
Of course everyone thinks they are excessively cautious drivers : https://www.smithlawco.com/blog/2017/december/do-most-drivers-really-think-they-are-above-aver/
As to how I am dealing with risks - by making decisions based on the best available information. The risk of getting covid isn’t the same for all the population. Super spreader events are responsible for a large proportion of cases, and I am avoiding any possible super-spreader scenario. I don’t know anyone who has had covid in the past 5 months, so the risk of anyone I know having covid at the time I interact with them is extremely low. Add to that the interactions I have are few and far between, outside and respecting social distancing, and the personal risk of me contracting covid is vanishingly small.
I personally would rather continue to take that small risk as the benefits of social interaction overweigh the costs.
Interesting insight - could you explain why you think they are dubious and politically motivated ? Thks