Does the marketplace of ideas work?

The marketplace of ideas protects and sustains an intellectual oligopoly

Question: Does the marketplace of ideas work?
Position‹2 of 3›: No, the marketplace of ideas does not work
Argument1 of 4›: The marketplace of ideas protects and sustains an intellectual oligopoly

An unregulated market of ideas disproportionately benefits a select few. In this way it supports social hierarchy and prevents those at the bottom from changing their circumstances.

The argument

Market regulation is critical for competition within any society. This is also true for the marketplace of ideas. Believing that liberal principles alone can defeat the spread of noxious ideas is wrong. Economic analyses show how a laissez-faire market breeds monopolies that overwhelm market forces and decimate competition. The same is true in this instance. Arguments people feel strongly about are often emotionally charged. They are successful because of how they appeal to base emotional instincts. Not because they are based on hard facts. Left unchecked, oversimplified, hateful, and factually wrong ideas have the opportunity to flourish. One need look no further than the recent growth of right wing populism in the West across the last five years to see how this takes hold. The problem with the marketplace of ideas is therefore in its construction. It assumes all are driven by the pursuit of "truth". History shows us this is a false assumption. And that frequently, the most simplistic and emotionally rousing arguments are those that have the greatest traction amongst the public. And conversely, these often stand apart from reason and logic. History shows us that as troubling ideas grow into something more potent within a society, they give rise to a dangerous elite minority. One that manipulates the wider social environment via emotive ideas built on hateful ideologies.

Premises

[P1]Just as unregulated economic markets breed monopolies that crush competition, an unregulated marketplace of ideas allows dominant ideologies to overwhelm rival viewpoints. [P2] The marketplace of ideas falsely assumes people pursue truth, when in fact emotionally charged, oversimplified, and hateful arguments gain the most traction with the public. [P3] Unchecked, these emotive ideas empower a manipulative elite minority, as seen in the recent rise of right-wing populism in the West. [C] Therefore, the marketplace of ideas does not work, but instead protects and sustains an intellectual oligopoly.

Counter-arguments

The extent of regulation is irrelevant in this context. Disinformation exists regardless of checks and balances in place. Companies, interest groups, individuals, and charities will always lobby for causes they care about. Politicians will always lie. And people will largely choose ideas that they benefit from.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The analogy carries less than it appears to. Economic monopoly works by controlling a scarce supply, whereas ideas are non-rival and cost almost nothing to reproduce, so dominance in the one case does not model dominance in the other. [Rejecting P2] The marketplace argument does not assume that individuals pursue truth. Its claim is only that open contest filters error better over time than an authority empowered to decide in advance which ideas may circulate. [Rejecting P3] The rise of populism is compatible with a market working slowly rather than one that has failed, and the premise offers no account of the regulator — the emotive and interested actors it distrusts are the same population from which any regulator would be drawn.