The so-called “intellectual dark web” is having a cultural moment. By casting aside political correctness and embracing taboo topics like free speech and identity politics, the ideologically diverse group has attracted controversy and high praise. Popular members include clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson, neuroscientist Sam Harris, right-wing pundit Ben Shapiro, and media personality Dave Rubin. All around North America and Europe, they are routinely selling out large auditoriums of adoring fans.

At the heart of the group is Rubin, who is largely responsible for wrangling up the dark-web crew to begin with. Prior to associating with one another, most intellectual, dark-web characters were first "Rubin Report" guests. He originally booked most of them in response to controversies where they had been shouted down by protesters or unfairly criticized by the Left. Rubin’s show has grown significantly since it started in late 2015, boasting nearly 800,000 subscribers and 170 million total views to date.

I’ve been a loyal fan, and I’ve learned a lot from his videos — but I recently had to hit the "unsubscribe" button.

During the latter years of my undergraduate education in 2016 and 2017, I became deeply concerned with the free-speech controversies cropping up at university campuses across the country. This made me an early devotee of Rubin. He featured an interesting range of guests, all of whom shared my frustration with intolerant college students and the generally querulous political climate. His conversations frequently covered campus controversies, media censorship, the importance of free expression, and the tendency of some progressives to mislabel those they disagree with as "racists" or "Nazis."

To their credit, Rubin and his intellectual, dark-web comrades are an eclectic mix. Among their ranks are left- and right-leaning academics (Bret Weinstein and Jordan Peterson, respectively), a "Never Trump" conservative pundit (Ben Shapiro), and several contrarian feminists (Christina Hoff Sommers and Ayaan Hirsi Ali). But although they are right in their assessment of toxic political correctness and the “regressive Left” (a term describing authoritarian progressives), the intellectual dark web has hardly presented a solution. As the group’s uniting voice, Rubin has played a unique role in defining how the conversations between intellectual, dark-web members play out — and therein lies the problem.

Rubin is a notoriously nonconfrontational host. One would be hard-pressed to find a single interview where he firmly challenges anything his guests say. I used to think this style was a refreshing shift from mainstream media shouting (perhaps a conscious move toward free and open dialogue), but now I’m not so sure. In a March 2017 interview with conservative author David Horowitz, Rubin was happy to let his interviewee call Democrats a “racist” party who had been infiltrated by totalitarians. Even when Horowitz called former President Barack Obama a “communist,” he still went unchallenged. Similarly, in an October 2015 discussion with right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulous, Rubin said nothing as his guest insulted feminists and “thanked God for the patriarchy.” Statements like these warrant some kind of pushback, and it is hardly a celebration of free speech to resign oneself to smiling and nodding.

Rubin has made more than his fair share of reputation-tarnishing misjudgments. His show has featured Stefan Molyneux, a Canadian alt-right pundit with an indefensible fascination with race and IQ, and Mike Cernovich, a conspiracy theorist in the mold of Alex Jones. I remember watching these interviews with an open mind, only to be horrified when I googled guest names afterward. Long before either appeared on Rubin’s show in 2016 and 2017, Molyneux and Cernovich were well-known as slimy conspiracy theorists. And yet, Rubin still chose to give them a massive platform.

Before being accused of advocating censorship, I should clarify: These individuals are perfectly within their rights to say whatever they wish. Protecting unpopular speech is very important, and it is deeply frustrating when YouTube and other social media sites are biased against right-wing and libertarian voices. But the right to free expression is wholly different from the ideal of free expression. Free speech, when properly utilized, is the best tool society has for discerning truth. Divorce it from humility, intellectual honesty, intellectual rigor, and a healthy dose of confrontation — and you get something that looks a lot like "The Rubin Report."

All things considered, Rubin has still taken an unfair beating from his left-wing critics. He is frequently mischaracterized as far-right, a Koch sell-out, and a clueless fraud by progressive media outlets like Mother Jones and "The Young Turks." His college visits have attracted protesters who ignorantly accuse him of peddling hate speech and supporting Nazis. He is not alone. Every other member of the IDW has seen a similar barrage of false accusations, simply for entertaining mildly controversial ideas. It is deeply concerning that this ideologically heterodox group receives so much blowback.

But I have also realized that Rubin wildly misses the mark in his understanding of free speech. I, too, am a staunch defender of free speech. I defend it not just as a constitutional right, but as one of the highest virtues. But there is no virtue in uncritically legitimizing silly ideas on a platform as influential as "The Rubin Report."

Rubin is a self-described emulator of Larry King, the media titan who dominated nighttime news for decades. King was famous for asking open-ended questions and allowing his guests to speak. On different occasions, Rubin has called King his “mentor.” Nevertheless, Rubin’s interview style is far from King’s. As a CNN host, King strove to leave his opinions at the door, while Rubin starts each interview with a direct address of his own opinions. King made his guests uncomfortable, while Rubin walks back any perceived challenges for the comfort of his guests. King highlights disagreement while Rubin avoids it at all costs.

The core problem with Rubin is that he has contented himself to only celebrating free speech as an end in and of itself. He seems to like it when guests say things just because they can. And while it is great that free citizens can say almost anything they want, stopping there misses much of what makes free speech so valuable. Virtuous free expression requires confrontation, not passive reception from a comfy, red chair.

Christian Barnard (@CBarnard33) is a Young Voices Advocate and a policy researcher with Reason Foundation.