Policy Poll: COVID-Related Posts

[Debater Slayer]

Hi, all,

The staff are currently in the process of revising our policy regarding how to address COVID-related misinformation. We would like to know what the members think of our current policy, as this may help us in the process of revision.

This is the current policy: New Policy Regarding Posting Misinformation About The Coronavirus

Please note that the revised policy will still prohibit dangerous misinformation such as anti-mask posts or encouraging other members to avoid vaccines, masks, or other precautionary measures as advised by medical consensus. However, the allowed sources may extend beyond just the WHO and the CDC, among other changes.

Due to the character limit for poll questions, I will post the options in the OP and number them for voting purposes:

Option #1: The current policy is outdated/too restrictive.

Option #2: The current policy is fine as it is.

Option #3: The policy should allow information from any sources outside of the CDC and the WHO.

Option #4: The policy should allow information outside of the CDC and the WHO, but only from reputable sources (as determined by staff) even if it actively contradicts mainstream medical consensus.​

Also, please note that you can vote for more than one answer.

Thank you for your feedback,

Debater Slayer, on behalf of the RF staff.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

4. The CDC and the WHO aren't the only valid sources, but at the same time this is just too deadly and serious to do nothing about fake crap making this pandemic worse than it ever needed to be.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I think it should maybe be like, "Other sources are allowed, but they should not actively contradict the CDC or WHO."

 

[Secret Chief]

Currently a bit US-centric : I just had to google CDC. JCVI or SAGE mean anything to Americans? So, voted 4. Keep the headcase stuff off the airwaves.

 

[exchemist]

Currently a bit US-centric : I just had to google CDC. JCVI or SAGE mean anything to Americans? So, voted 4. Keep the headcase stuff off the airwaves.

Ditto.

There are plenty of reputable sources, e.g. recognised university or health organisation research, and not just from the USA. I think the way the current policy is phrased, i.e. giving staff discretion rather being prescriptive as to sources, is probably the right way to handle it.

I do think the rider to the policy, that sources should be cited, is important. Mods should have discretion to delete material not traceable to a reputable source.

 

[Spiderman]

I personally don't care for the current policy, but the good news is, my opinion doesn't matter, therefore, it's probably just fine.

 

[Heyo]

Hi, all,

The staff are currently in the process of revising our policy regarding how to address COVID-related misinformation. We would like to know what the members think of our current policy, as this may help us in the process of revision.

This is the current policy: New Policy Regarding Posting Misinformation About The Coronavirus

Please note that the revised policy will still prohibit dangerous misinformation such as anti-mask posts or encouraging other members to avoid vaccines, masks, or other precautionary measures as advised by medical consensus. However, the allowed sources may extend beyond just the WHO and the CDC, among other changes.

Due to the character limit for poll questions, I will post the options in the OP and number them for voting purposes:

Option #1: The current policy is outdated/too restrictive.

Option #2: The current policy is fine as it is.

Option #3: The policy should allow information from any sources outside of the CDC and the WHO.

Option #4: The policy should allow information outside of the CDC and the WHO, but only from reputable sources (as determined by staff) even if it actively contradicts mainstream medical consensus.​

Also, please note that you can vote for more than one answer.

Thank you for your feedback,

Debater Slayer, on behalf of the RF staff.

I voted #1 outdated.

1. The policy is obviously not enforced as I just read multiple posts containing different conspiracy theories and false informations.
2. The RF community is actively debunking any of the false informations.
3. Who ever is an anti vaxxer now will not be swayed by deleted posts and those who are open to new information get the fake news and bad arguments together with the corrected news and counter arguments. (Which they won't get from other sources.)
4. Who ever is not an anti vaxxer by now, will not be swayed by the bad arguments of the anti vaxxers. Heck, most of us had our two shots already.
5. Our rights are already curtailed by the government (for good reasons). I see no reason to add censorship by RF staff to that, it will only give the conspiracy theorists more arguments.

 

[Debater Slayer]

1. The policy is obviously not enforced as I just read multiple posts containing different conspiracy theories and false informations.

The policy is enforced throughout the forums; the confidential nature of moderation is probably why you have only or mostly noticed the posts that the staff haven't seen or acted on.

If you believe a post violates the policy, feel free to report it so that the staff can review it. We don't see every post that is made on the forums, and with how active a lot of COVID threads tend to be, the importance of reports is further amplified.

That and not all posts that you may view as conspiracy theories or misinformation necessarily warrant action per staff consensus. We review posts on a case-by-case basis in light of current policies, so we don't always end up taking action or deeming any given post a rule violation.

 

[Quagmire]

I voted #1 outdated.

1. The policy is obviously not enforced as I just read multiple posts containing different conspiracy theories and false informations.

And you didn't report those because . . .?

"I saw it and didn't bother reporting it" doesn't amount to "isn't being enforced".

"How come the fire department let my house burn down"???

---- "Did you call the fire department"?

"How come the fire department let my house burn down"???

 

[Heyo]

And you didn't report those because . . .?

I think it is better to debunk them on sight - what many active RFers do.
And if those posts I read are OK with staff, only the better, we agree then.

btw: I just posted a poll to falsify/verify my hunch that fake news on RF have little to no influence on the readers.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think it is better to debunk them on sight - what many active RFers do.
And if those posts I read are OK with staff, only the better, we agree then.

1) Whether or not the staff are personally okay with any given post is irrelevant to moderation; what matters is whether or not said post violates any forum rules/policies.

2) The staff can't determine whether or not we are okay with any given post--in the sense of determining whether or not it violates any rules--if we haven't seen it in the first place. As I said earlier, we rely on reports because we can't see everything that is posted on the forums.

btw: I just posted a poll to falsify/verify my hunch that fake news on RF have little to no influence on the readers.

One thing that may be important to keep in mind is that RF gets dozens of daily visitors who either lurk or don't log in. Such a poll can't account for them, but new registrations and further forum activity can come from that specific audience.

 

[exchemist]

I voted #1 outdated.

1. The policy is obviously not enforced as I just read multiple posts containing different conspiracy theories and false informations.
2. The RF community is actively debunking any of the false informations.
3. Who ever is an anti vaxxer now will not be swayed by deleted posts and those who are open to new information get the fake news and bad arguments together with the corrected news and counter arguments. (Which they won't get from other sources.)
4. Who ever is not an anti vaxxer by now, will not be swayed by the bad arguments of the anti vaxxers. Heck, most of us had our two shots already.
5. Our rights are already curtailed by the government (for good reasons). I see no reason to add censorship by RF staff to that, it will only give the conspiracy theorists more arguments.

I think this is not about swaying people with a confirmed viewpoint, but avoiding dissemination of false information to readers who may not have encountered it before.

 

[Lyndon]

What I see as a problem is vehement anti vaxxers that just won't shut up and take over and completely dominate a thread with nonsensical garbage, I think that needs to be limited.

 

[Moonjuice]

I do not think any opinion should be censored. Its not dangerous to have a conflicting opinion, its dangerous to not allow a conflicting opinion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I do not think any opinion should be censored. Its not dangerous to have a conflicting opinion, its dangerous to not allow a conflicting opinion.

And yet you agreed to be censored and moderated here as a condition of joining.

 

[Heyo]

One thing that may be important to keep in mind is that RF gets dozens of daily visitors who either lurk or don't log in. Such a poll can't account for them, but new registrations and further forum activity can come from that specific audience.

And you fear that too much conspiracy talk may attract the wrong people?
Good point, I haven't thought about that.

But is that fear rational? I don't have any statistics but from the new members introduction (and those who come in without introducing themselves) it seems the fluctuation isn't that high.

 

[Quagmire]

I do not think any opinion should be censored. Its not dangerous to have a conflicting opinion, its dangerous to not allow a conflicting opinion.

It can, however, be dangerous to spread lies, propaganda, and misinformation.

For instance: if mainstream consensus is that jumping off a cliff will result in falling to the bottom, and your opinion is that gravity is a hoax being perpetrated by the government to control the masses, it's up to you whether or not you want to put that to the test.

On the other hand coming into RF and posting a YouTube video of somebody claiming, "Hey! You know what? I jumped off a cliff yesterday and I didn't fall! I flew! I went soaring through the clouds! it was great! You should try it. Oh and by the way I used to work for NASA so I know what I'm talking about"!

I think that should probably be taken down.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'd say outside sources but put "in my opinion" and/or a health (.edu ex), WHO, CDC, NHS, etc second citation to cross reference.

Things like YouTube videos say conferences where citations are directly from the source would be helpful.

Things I'd say no to are media posts that are biased. Antivax posts for example (how to convince an antivax person) would be an example.

I'd also explain what is dangerous information if related to liability concerns and anything of that nature. If not, I wouldn't know a way to address it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Currently a bit US-centric : I just had to google CDC. JCVI or SAGE mean anything to Americans? So, voted 4. Keep the headcase stuff off the airwaves.

That's a good point. I'd say four OP given there are authoritative sources outside the country outside WHO.

 

[Moonjuice]

And yet you agreed to be censored and moderated here as a condition of joining.

That's true. However, if I felt like I would be censored for having an opposing view to whoever the moderators are, I'd leave this forum as fast as I found it.