This is the basic gist. Would talking about information against COVID pandemic make RF liable for encouraging misinformation?
Morally, we can't determine if posting information will lead someone to believe something different than they already do. So, unless it's a liability thing, I can't think of another reason it would be dangerous outside of staff discretion.
I don't know what you mean exactly. Liable as in legally liable? I don't know, since RF is based in the U.S. and I'm not familiar with such nuances of U.S. law.
The policy isn't based on legal liability or lack thereof; it's based on our view that the forum shouldn't serve as a platform for dangerous misinformation, whether that be encouragement of suicide or forgoing medical precautions during a pandemic. We don't believe that such posts align with the forum's mission statement or the atmosphere that we have strived to maintain on the forum for years.
And going by the current results of the poll, it's clear that the vast majority of members also don't want RF to serve as a platform for dangerous misinformation and conspiracy theories.
Oh. It's similar because it says posting misinformation may influence readers to take certain actions and think certain thoughts.
Unlike suicide, though, people who read about COVID information or misinformation more likely know what they are reading. The suicide thing is a liability issue because if someone takes the misinformation to heart, they may commit suicide. Unlike misinformation from COVID where a person may read a conspiracy theory on social media but double check it on CDC and go with the experts.
With COVID misinformation, it's not giving people credit of doing their own research unlike suicide where one is suffering from a mental health condition and the influence would be more vital than reading about, say, vaccines changing one's DNA. Different context.
Again, your point is unclear, but what I gather of it seems disconnected from the comparison you drew. A suicidal person may not necessarily accept pro-suicide arguments either, but we're not risking that and not allowing such posts here, because we believe they run contrary to the forum's mission statement. Same as posts discouraging medically advised safety precautions related to the pandemic.
Also, a focal point here is that questions such as "What actions can help to combat the spread of COVID?" and "Are vaccines and masks effective precautionary measures against COVID?" are questions that only qualified experts can answer, and so far, the vast majority of expert organizations worldwide recommend masks and vaccines among a slew of other measures to protect oneself and others from death or severe illness from COVID.
Doing one's "own research" doesn't negate said expert consensus, and we can't defer to individual members' views on medical issues during a pandemic that has killed millions of people worldwide and hundreds of thousands in the U.S., where RF is based. Instead, we rely on medical organizations and keep any unqualified and personal opinions isolated from these questions.
That's one of the reasons we're currently looking into allowing a broader range of (reputable) sources: if a peer-reviewed study from a well-known medical source, such as Mayo Clinic, contradicts mainstream medical consensus, we don't believe it's our position to prohibit the posting of such information. On the other hand, claims and (mis)information lacking proper expert citation or peer review and discouraging safety measures espoused by medical organizations are both dangerous and unevidenced.
