In that case, a lot of what you posted in this thread doesn't make any sense to me. For instance:
And to be honest I feel like the last half an hour I just spent trying to clarify things was pretty much a waste of time.
I mean, if you really understand the op, you could have just voted for number four, explained why, and left it at that.
I'll try to explain it better and please do not feel obligated to waste your time clarifying anything.
As I said in my first post, I do not think anyone's opinions should be censored. This is not because I do not understand the OP. I would like to select option #5, which is not an option. That would be
do not block anyone's opinion (as long as they are following all the standard forum rules of course). Instead, leave it to the participants to evaluate the opinions and sources. We all can decide why those sources are or are not reputable and discuss it. Isn't that the purpose of forum, to get different perspectives? I realize you do not agree with my opinion, and you would prefer that I just vote for #4 and move on. I'd simply like to be free to form my own opinion.
I'm looking at the bigger picture.
1. Outside of Covid, could you imagine if every persons opinion on anything had to be first backed up by information, then evaluated by a group of people who get to determine if the source of information you base your decisions on is what THEY would consider reputable. I think this is a slippery slope. I'm talking about an individuals freedom to think for themselves, based on whatever information THEY believe is reputable.
2. The RF exists because people have different perspectives on religion - even those who follow the same religious texts do not agree on the all the content. So why don't we have a group to decide what sources of religious doctrine are "reputable" and what are not? We could end many religious discussions now.
"And now we are pretending that if the U.S. government says it, it can't be lies, propaganda or misinformation?"
We are talking about the US Government. The amount of misinformation spread by the government and its officials is overwhelming. Even with the best intentions, reputable institutions can get it wrong from time to time. Can't they?
If someone is going to convince me that the only place to look for reputable information is a U.S. government institution or it cannot be discussed, I'm going to have to object. Even the CDC, with Covid especially, has had to adjust recommendations as more information becomes available. Their recommendations have evolved - this is science. So what was once correct information, can now be considered misinformation. AND vise/versa, as I explained earlier with the Lab Leak Theory. Not long ago, you could be banned from social media platforms for even mentioning it could be accurate and now its the accepted theory for most people and no one is being banned for it. I have some personal experience with the CDC changing their NIOSH approval on a particular respirator mask that had a significant direct impact on me. It's a long story, so I'll spare the details.
Like I said, I'm not saying I disagree with the CDC's recommendations. I certainly understand misinformation is potentially killing people and spreading it can be dangerous. I also realize that living on this planet is a lot like a private forum: you are free to comply with the rules, or not participate. With Covid, you are free to protect yourself, or when you catch Covid and die, you are free to not participate in living. All that being said, this OP was intended to get our opinion on a rule or potential rule change and I am happy to be allowed to give it.
