Better arguments can drown in a deluge of bad ones
Volume of fallacious argument is not neutral. It can bury better reasoning simply by flooding attention and public space.
What if better arguments start drowning in a deluge of fallacious ones? Truth does not automatically outcompete noise. When false or lazy claims are cheap to produce and expensive to refute line by line, public reason can lose by exhaustion rather than by logic.
I do not treat that as a call to silence. I treat it as a design problem of attention, standards, and who has stamina to keep arguing carefully when the feed rewards volume.
From X
Derived from posts on X as devendrasm: