The online world has changed since you wrote your "hoax" rule.
How politics and political matters are discussed online has changed (and we can discuss the reasons why that has happened, such a discussion would be - or could be - fruitful).
Likewise, how politics has used (and abused) the online space has changed radically (especially over the past half decade).
However, to think that political elites won't demand accountability - and won't insist on some degree of regulation and oversight of online social media platforms (re verification of content, privacy concerns, taxation, accountability) in the wake of demonstrations of how powerful, potentially destructive of democratic structures and institutions, and, at times, utterly irresponsible, sometimes, dangerously irresponsible, the social media platforms have been - may be to misss the point.
Already the social media world is becoming fractured (China is regulating its own space, and the EU has the social media behemoths in its sights), and the argument will be made that if the platforms cannot regulate themsleves, or show reluctance to do so, then, governments will hasten to address this deficiency, as they cannot allow such bodies - more powerful than many, if not most, of the governments on the planet, - to enjoy the many benefits of the free market and of the primacy of the rule of law and legal protections afforded by democratic societies, without taking some responsibility for - or, no longer being able to disclaim responsibility for - what appears, or is posted, on their platforms.
@ericgtr12 has addressed those points and made an answer to them: At that the risk of repeating these arguments, - an opinion that a face mask doesn't work does not detract from the fact that it is false; likewise, an opinion that electoral fraud occurred and that the incumbent won does not detract from the fact that that opinion is also (demonstrably) false.
Both (opinions, statements, posts/threads) are misleading, and are misinformation, and are also a form of misrepresentation, and, by not checking, or challenging, or signalling the doubtful veracity of such material, or the truth of such opinions, the platform serves to spread them, and may be considered not unsympathetic to such opinions.
If MR is to run such discussions, they have some responsibility to ensure some degree of truth, or that a distinction is drawn between what is true, and what is false on their site.
Otherwise, they run the risk of losing credibility, of being seen as a credible source, not merely on politics, but - also on scientific, and on tech matters.
For, sealing off sections of the site, with different standards to be applied to different truths - "we ban hoaxes re Mac matters, but are utterly indifferent to the veracity or otherwise of false facts, false opinions, hoaxes, and lies when posted in our political sections" is not an especially good look, and - longterm - is not really credible across the site.
For, if truth doesn't matter in politics, why should the site be believed when it says that hoaxes are not tolerated when discussing a new Mac?
Excellent post and I'm in complete agreement with you.
Yes, religion (and here I will state that I, as an exceptionally secular European, harbour profound doubts about such matters) is a matter of opinion.
However, unless you live in a theocracy, or a state govered by religious law, where your rights may be undermined or abolished outright because some religious group, or priestly caste, or theological elite believe that to deprive you of your basic rights is divinely ordained, or, unless (and until) identifying (theologically, or culturally) with a religion becomes a matter of life and death, whereby someone believes they have the (divinely inspired) right to kill you beause you are the wrong religion, a religious "opinion" will not - or, may not - materially affect the lives of people who post here.
Masks and the recent US elections are dramatically different, and it is a genuine tragedy that the issue of mask wearing became so politicised - rather then being viewed as a useful precautionary tool in the field of the provision of public health care - in the US in recent months.
It is one thing to permit such opinions to be posted; it is quite another to permit such opinions to be posted - and allowed to remain - unchallenged by the platform which hosts them.
Such claims - hosted yet uncontested online - have consequences, consequences which have played out in public over the past few weeks.
Of course MR is not solely - or principally - responsible for this, but to deny that it is a part of an online ecosystem that has wilfully washed its hands of - disclaimed, disavowed - responsibility for ensuring the veracity of the more contentious content of what is posted on its platform is to miss the point.
In any case, I have already - in a number of reports - reported the thread in question (and contacted the admins) and set out my reasons for so doing, unfortunately, to no avail. Again, it is relatively easy to devise a system of flagging, or signalling that something is "alleged", or unverified, without having to remove it entirely, and thus suppress the conversation, or discussion or debate.
I am not arguing that such posts (or threads) be removed, but that posts, and threads, that are dangerously and demonstrably false be flagged as such.
Besides, the days when online platforms could cheerfully disclaim any responsibility for the content on their platforms may be drawing to a close, not least because a different administration will take office from this week.
Last edited by a moderator:
