The article examines the negative downstream effects of alarmist disinformation discourse in the United States. It argues that indiscriminate warnings about disinformation can overestimate its effects and associated dangers, leading to increased support for restrictive speech regulation and dissatisfaction with democracy. The study uses a preregistered experiment to test two treatments: one emphasizing the dangers of disinformation (T1) and another providing a balanced account of its presence and limited reach (T2). The results show that T1 raised perceived dangers and supported more restrictive regulation, while T2 lowered these perceptions. The findings highlight the importance of balanced and contextually informed discussions to mitigate negative downstream effects and maintain public trust in democratic systems.The article examines the negative downstream effects of alarmist disinformation discourse in the United States. It argues that indiscriminate warnings about disinformation can overestimate its effects and associated dangers, leading to increased support for restrictive speech regulation and dissatisfaction with democracy. The study uses a preregistered experiment to test two treatments: one emphasizing the dangers of disinformation (T1) and another providing a balanced account of its presence and limited reach (T2). The results show that T1 raised perceived dangers and supported more restrictive regulation, while T2 lowered these perceptions. The findings highlight the importance of balanced and contextually informed discussions to mitigate negative downstream effects and maintain public trust in democratic systems.