So how will we determine that a post is factually correct? Will the moderators have to spend their time now fact checking every post? What happens when a post about a topic cites source material that justifies their position but others believe its fake? Take climate change, there's plenty of sites that provide evidence to deny that it exists.
Do we delete those posts because other people feel its fake news? Conversely when someone disbelieves in climate change and they come up against a global warming post, they'll report that as fake news.
Another topic is wearing masks, we have many people denying the effectiveness of masks, and those posts were reported left and right, calling it fake news. Well we're seeing the CDC now saying masks (at least outdoors) has minimal (at best) affect. So people called those posts out as fake only now the they may not be?
I don't think its job of the staff to vet out each post's truthfulness. If someone is purposely trying to mislead the membership then yes, the hoax rule as its written will be applied. If someone believes the world if flat, then the hoax rules does not apply as they're stating a belief.
Lets take it to an extreme perspective - religion. How can we determine the truthfulness of religion when that in of itself is basically based on faith. Science has no ability to prove/disprove of a creator.
By embracing that every post needs to be factual, we open up a can of worms especially when you consider that the PRSI is now closed to new members. We spent so much time dealing with this hoax discussion, when truth be told, it probably represents such a low percentage of what's being posted it seems kind of a waste to keep beating this horse to death. Yes, some news stories about covid or the pandemic will more likely generate posts that others feel is not factually correct but generally we're talking about a tiny subset of activity.
Then, don't check posts for truth, or facts, or anything of the sort.
For, it is abundantly clear that MR has neither the desire nor the resources to do so (though I will still argue that this is a low bar to clear, especially if platforms such as FB and Twitter are compelled to do so).
In any case, that is not what I request, or hope for, - not any longer.
In fact, I am not sure that it is any longer possible to have an intelligent, sober, conversation on MR on climate change, or religion, or indeed, guns or elections.
That is unfortunate.
Even more unfortunate is the fact that the subject of masks has become so politicised in the US (unlike in Europe, where I am from, and where it is still perfectly possible to have a cordial and civilised conversation - one that includes disagreement - or the sort of complex conversation where one can concur that masks are inconvenient, uncomfortable, but are still necessary - about masks) that it is not possible to have a sane conversation on this forum on that subject matter any longer.
But, equally, in the interests of consistency, or logic, (forget truth, and forget facts, because I think we concur that these are entirely irrelevant in this context), please do not attempt to argue that the "no hoax" rule is remotely relevant (as the application of such a rule is clearly an ask too far), or that it is possible to enforce it, or implement it.
For what it is worth, my argument is that facts are a better basis for adjudiction than attempting to infer intent from a post, which is a task generally beyond me, and most people.
Therefore, I do not ask for this.
Instead, either abolish the "no hoax" rule, or amend it, so that it applies only to discussions of Apple products.
My suggestion is that you simply amend rules you cannot - or will not, or choose not to - enforce.
Simply state that the "no hoax" rule is only applicable when the discussion in a thread is about Apple products; you could even exclude threads about Apple (the company) from this requirement, - hence much of the ludicrous nonsense about Tim Cook could still appear, free from the perils of fact checking - and thereby ignore the insanity of misinformation, and render irrelevant any redundant requirement to cite sources in support of a statement (or fact).
Instead, I am asking that consideration be given to amending the rules to reflect the reality of the threads on this forum.
Simply state that "no hoaxes" applies simply to discussion of Apple products, and that, as long as debate (or discussion) is polite, the threads can be as fact free as you wish, as it is not the task of the mods to fact check, or adjudicate matters of truth.
Now, speaking (writing?) personally, as an historian with a reverence for facts, I might deplore such an approach, but, after all, it is not my site.
Nevertheless, such an approach would be logical, rational, and entirely consistent with how the rules are currrently interpreted and applied on the forum.
