A rising star.

[Chiefsmom]

Most certainly hard to fact check anything these days, when our scientific community has been bought and paid for by both sides.

Basically, if you want a result and have enough money, you can find a scientist to prove your results.

Exhibit A:  Big Pharma.

Sad world we live in.

[quintessentone]

Define "fact checking" and who gets to censor who when it comes to presenting those "facts". According to some, only their version of the truth is worth listening to.

As I stated previously, specifically referring to Facebook's removal of fact-checking, both sides of the political/science/whatever subject matter should be fact-checked first by the poster, provide a source, then the owners/moderators need to determine what is and what isn't to be accepted as fact on their site, then act accordingly to develop their T&C.

Having no fact-checking is simply opinion and closed-minded belief systems on show and I don't consider that debate. To me it's either misinformation or disinformation depending on the lack of research with sources, problematic fact-checking, or one's agenda, or ego (just needing to be right).

At the very least, a poster should provide a source for their stance so others can at the very least see if their source has an agenda that leans to one side or the other.

[David64]

As I stated previously, specifically referring to Facebook's removal of fact-checking, both sides of the political/science/whatever subject matter should be fact-checked first by the poster, provide a source, then the owners/moderators need to determine what is and what isn't to be accepted as fact on their site, then act accordingly to develop their T&C.

Having no fact-checking is simply opinion and closed-minded belief systems on show and I don't consider that debate. To me it's either misinformation or disinformation depending on the lack of research with sources, problematic fact-checking, or one's agenda, or ego (just needing to be right).

At the very least, a poster should provide a source for their stance so others can at the very least see if their source has an agenda that leans to one side or the other.

 then the owners/moderators need to determine what is and what isn't to be accepted as fact on their site,

Wow. Just.....wow.  You want someone to tell you what to think and believe.  We've seen way too much of that. I'd rather hear both sides and decide for myself, rather than being told what is or isn't "The Truth".

[quintessentone]

Wow. Just.....wow.  You want someone to tell you what to think and believe.  We've seen way too much of that. I'd rather hear both sides and decide for myself, rather than being told what is or isn't "The Truth".

That's not what I was trying to relay. What is needed on a social forum are T&Cs to prevent disinformation and misinformation . So if you follow and believe in the Proud Boys' rhetoric that should not be accepted as anything that is a universal truth in society, but only a truth to the Proud Boys and their following. Get it?

[David64]

Once again, who gets to decide what is disinformation and misinformation ?

History should tell you that letting any one group decide what is The Truth is very dangerous.

[quintessentone]

Once again, who gets to decide what is disinformation and misinformation ?

History should tell you that letting any one group decide what is The Truth is very dangerous.

That's why the owner/moderators of a social forum need to take responsibility to decide if the Proud Boys' rhetoric is an acceptable source as truth/fact.

If they want to wash their hands of that responsibility, like the owner of Facebook, then it will either morph into an echo chamber or a hostile site with ill will and butt hurt all around. No way can any good discussions or debate take place, only opinions and mudslinging.

[David64]

You keep referring to The Proud Boys. I'm talking about information in general. I don't need nor want someone deciding what information I am allowed to see. I can think for myself, I don't need a babysitter.

[quintessentone]

You keep referring to The Proud Boys. I'm talking about information in general. I don't need nor want someone deciding what information I am allowed to see. I can think for myself, I don't need a babysitter.

It's not about thinking for yourself, it's about most people being led around by the nose by their belief system, programming and/or biases.

Thinking for yourself without researching independent and fair sources is following your programming to see and hear what you want to see and hear. Is that what you think is thinking for yourself?

[David64]

No. I look at as many sources as I can and then make up my own mind. 

Why do you want some "Ministry of Truth" that gets to decide what is allowed to be seen or read ? We've been there before and it did NOT turn out well.

"The Free Exchange Of Ideas"...... and I get to decide, not some corporate or government assigned Guardian of Truth.

[Chiefsmom]

That's why the owner/moderators of a social forum need to take responsibility to decide if the Proud Boys' rhetoric is an acceptable source as truth/fact.

If they want to wash their hands of that responsibility, like the owner of Facebook, then it will either morph into an echo chamber or a hostile site with ill will and butt hurt all around. No way can any good discussions or debate take place, only opinions and mudslinging.

That doesn't seem to come off as what you're saying.  It seems like you're saying that you don't think anyone should post their rhetoric.  Is that not free speech?   Isn't it then up to the reader to find out if what they say is truth or not?

Because I believe people should have the right to their own opinions and to find out the truth for themselves.  If they choose not to do so, well that's on them, and then they get called out with facts.  That happened a lot on the other site.  
Maybe I misinterpreted your post?