Disinformation policy
- Thread starter Harambe
- Start date
I get the premise. Just not sure how to clearly draw that line. (Story of my life with all moderation). I think if you see these blatant examples, please report them and we'll factor that in - I agree sharing clear disinformation is not something we should promote.
carey scurry fan
Well-Known Member
So you call for censorship because you cant win any debate? If thats the case ALL your big pharm funded misinformation links would be censored.
carey scurry fan
Well-Known Member
You have been banned 100 times with all the pro establishment propaganda if that was the case
Miggs
Well-Known Member
Are you a grossly unhealthy individual or someone with underlying health issues?
JazzyFresh
Banned
Examples maybe?
Or is op just looking to get opposing views cancelled?
Or is op just looking to get opposing views cancelled?
I feel for you. And I want to help any way I can, but you do have a ton more experience than I do.
When we've run out of ideas, we don't give up. We look for ideas. Anyone that's been on Facebook has seen the often heavy handed response. And many subreddits moderator staff are demanding action be taken.
Keep your eye on them. Though not perfect, they've been on the cutting-edge on a lot of issues. It absolutely makes your job more difficult.
There's several strategies that have already emerged ranging from some quick check in(whitelist), to collaborative strategies across multiple forums to keep ******** and reality separate.
I don't think that's the case. @Jason, how many times has @LogGrad98 been banned?
You don't need a million sources when one valid, valued, peer reviewed source based in fact exists.
You're dismissed.
carey scurry fan
Well-Known Member
another braindead take
Some threads are near unreadable due to the amount of insane far right ******** posted in them. I should put more people on ignore...
csf is pretty loose rhetorically. Pretty clear he was hypothesizing that a true set of facts would make any ...... regular sort of non-Republican...... a candidate for banning on issues of fidelity to any kind of "truth" measurement. So it's stupid of you to contest his fairly clear meaning with a meaningless fact.
Your second point demonstrates the real problem here. Anyone can think of maybe at least two reason to disbelieve any fact, any peer-reviewed article, or any government official statement.
If the proponents of a better world really need to silence questioning folks, or even ignoramuses, they have the real problem. Whatever people don't understand should be addressed respectfully with some kind of line of reason and assemblage of whatever good information you have.
Not too much to ask of progressive thinkers, really,.
Even I would see some propriety to curbing flagrant insults, personal attacks, and such, which sometimes I think is true of a lot of us, but if it is j
out-of-hand or say persistent, I say a timeout is appropriate.