Should PF mods be responsible for stopping COVID misinformation?<<MOD WARNING>>

<<MODERATOR WARNING>> - Rule 8 -
A moderator's warning has been issued for this thread concerning Rule 8 for criticizing moderator's actions. Please see the moderator's explanation and clarification of this issue on a post on page 3 of this thread.

The question is in the title. Covid misinformation can kill people. That is not up to debate. What is up for debate is how much should the mods do to police misinformation. What should the moderators for PF do to police misinformation?

I propose something very simple: changing the title of a thread to indicate whether or not it's been confirmed to be false. If it is, keep it up and just change the title of it to indicate whether or not it's been fact checked. With this, we might be able to slow down the spread of misinformation. The mods wouldn't even have to do much work. All they would have to do is read through the thread or do a quick google search to indicate that it's false. People who engage in misinformation can still post, but they will be fact checked to make sure they're not hurting people.

What say you?

 

They should be.....They seam to worry about some of the littlest things...

Then again how many fake news articles from BS web sites they let go?

How about the headlines, that dont even match the article?

 

Nah. They should put it in the Conspiracy Theory section or delete it (if that's what they choose to do with their platform), but they shouldn't be legally responsible for what people on their platform post, and they won't be unless Section 230 is repealed, which would be a huge mistake that would result in MORE control of online speech, not less.

 

Trump did not get 230 reversed, so PF is not legally responsible for what posters post, it's their choice

had Trump got his way, PF would have to pre-review every post and censor on the side of caution

 

Yep. It would likely mean the end of this forum . . . and most other online platforms.

 

No, the Mods shouldn't be responsible for that.

God will take care of it ...

 

Every moderator that has a Nobel Peace Prize, medical degree and PhD in virology specifically for work on covid-19 maybe will consider it. Then again, giving medical advise in such capacity invokes doctor-patient privilege so it would have to be by PMs.

 

So you oppose Trump's efforts to overturn Section 230. Glad to have another ally in that.

 

This thread is not about Section 230. PF mods are not the arbiters of truth.

 

Do you oppose mods moving threads into the conspiracy theory forum?

 

Removing 230 would require all platforms to operate as such.

 

This forum is intended primarily to provide a platform to debate political issues.

It is not a healthcare information website.

I would offer more, but the chances of this thread being vanished are pretty high.

 

I think that would be a dumb idea. Not my call though.

 

They're already trying to operate as such.

 

They can do as they like with their own property. Removing 230 would legally force them to be even more restrictive than they would voluntarily be with their own property.

 

Quick google search to determine if something is false? ROTFLMAO

Oh, yeh, the first three things that come up on a google search signify “truth”. It’s really hard to take this stuff seriously, but for those who really do care about truth, I think we better. That idea above of using google to arbitrate truth/falsehood may be the most dangerous statement of authoritarianism I’ve ever seen.

 

My thought on this would be that most of the liberal posters couldn't post their threads... The rest of us have endured years of their faceless, baseless threads, have fact checked them to death, and yet...

Here's the thing about WuFlu. What, in your mind, is misinformation? Would it be, for example, Fauci telling everyone that masks were unnecessary? Would it be Nancy Pelosi or Gavin Newsome behaving in a way that undermines their public policy? What misinformation do you suppose needs to be identified as "misinformation". Just asking.

 

True enough. Unless you actually have the brass to say they haven't been politically biased for years and that they are not simply platforms for the dissemination of public rhetoric with ONE message, then you should admit that for those whose opinions are "verboten" such restrictions already exist and ONLY for one side. Make them publishers and they'll lose their political power AND much of their wealth. To avoid this, all they need to do is allow unfettered free political speech. Why is this so difficult a concept?

 

Courts have already ruled that this has to do with the creator of the content, not the supposed publisher/platform distinction. And anyone claiming they have a problem finding a conservative voice on social media is lying. It's all over my FB feed.

No private property owner should be forced to choose between not having any rules whatsoever and being held accountable for anything someone else says on their platform. The true anti-speech side is coming from the Trump team.

 

Absolutely not.

 

NO

 

How does one breathe in such a vacuum you must inhabit... Even though the Russia hoax has been fully exposed for the canard that is was, you can still find volumes of it's conspiracy content on FB, Youtube, Twitter, etc. No effort at all has been made by any of those platforms to remove said misinformation and abuse of their platforms. The only folks being censored are folks pointing out the ridiculousness of democratic misinformation for which these platforms seem eager to enshrine. Perhaps you could simply google trump tax returns, and witness the illegally exposed (federal felony actually) information on these platforms. All neatly retained, and in violation of their own platform standards. Gosh....So spare us the indignation that somehow you find that 230 being removed will hurt your dear trust partners. Its' pathetic.

 

The fallacy of your assertion is that the "property" is establishing the public square. Hence what 230 is actually about. The very second you take the approach that it isn't treated like the public square, the 230 protections go away. If you don't treat the public square as public, and you editorially establish your own version, you stop being protected and become a publisher. These are basic principles. Even you should get them.

 

My claim about the "Russia hoax" was that they knew about Russia's attempts to help Trump and pursued dirt on Hillary. Both of which the campaign as now admitted to. I never claimed Trump himself was involved or that they were successful in their efforts, and I repeatedly said that it wouldn't change the fact that Trump won.

You are projecting your insecurities onto others in order to defend further government restriction on online speech. Sad.