(3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help." However, the authors advocate that each "instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5)."
This thread is a conspiracy theory, so yes.
That is simply not the case. What he does is list a number of the actions that the government might take, including banning conspiracy theorizing, and discusses what he thinks the results might be. With regards to banning conspiracy theorizing, although he does say it MIGHT be self defeating, he clearly says the he can imagine a scenario where it becomes thinkable.But don't let fact that the guy advises against banning/taxing CT dissemination
We could imagine circumstances in which a conspiracy theory became so pervasive, and so dangerous, that censorship would be thinkable.