I don't disagree, based on the harm that is being done. You may see me comment in that regard, but if moderation rules end up being more lenient than I am personally, based on feedback, that's what I'll do as a moderator. It's about what the community wants and needs in order for genuine discussion to thrive.
Something which is demonstrably factually incorrect, which tends to be more in the scientific domain than the political domain, I'm personally in favor of removing so that the misinformation doesn't spread. However, I also see a lot of value in allowing it to remain and be corrected, especially when it's not something that can harm people (e.g., "vaccines will make you autistic and kill you!"). But then, what if it remains and nobody bothers to correct it?
I'm looking right now, as another example, at a comment which is trying to factually state that both Joe Biden and Hunter Biden are pedophiles, with nothing to back this up. I would consider it trolling in that case, but there are definitely going to be instances where it's harder to distinguish. And of course, there will always be the crazies who believe utter nonsense.
I'd like to know more about the community's thoughts before we try to tackle that.
I'm a few weeks late in replying to your comment, but we didn't have moderation when you posted this. A few of us have just started moderating, literally today, so please give us a bit to catch up.
Please check out the stickied thread about what kind of rules and guidelines you would like to see, if you haven't already. We don't have those guidelines to work with yet, but blatant bigotry, trolling, and spamming are our first targets while we work out the details.
I had my first real crush on a celebrity with sexual feelings associated when I was 8 or 9 years old. I've heard similar stories from others first hand. It's normal.
Ignoring the religious elements, this is factually incorrect. Nobody likes to talk about it, but it's common for pre-pubescent girls to masturbate. George Carlin even had a bit about it!
Now, that's generally not talked about for good reasons--we don't want to rile up the pedophiles, and we don't want to rile up the people who are so aggressively religious that they can't acknowledge biology. But the fact of the matter is that people don't become sexual the instant they reach their country's age of consent or the instant they get married.
There's nothing wrong with you disliking those facts, but they are what they are.
I've found that some sites have much higher quality opinion pieces than others. For example, opinion pieces on Politico and even MSNBC tend to have a lot of factual back information included for the reader. Do we want to allow those sorts of articles?
This sort of question is why this thread was created. I'm in favor of a zero tolerance policy for fascism, bigotry, and anything that is clearly misinformation. But that's my personal opinion and we'll all be working together to decide on what the community wants and what works best. Rules can also be altered as we grow, of course, if our initial guidelines aren't sufficient.
I would like to see more discussion around handling misinformation. The lines between misinformation, trolling, and someone being genuinely incorrect (which is still misinformation) can be blurry.
However, I personally believe that spreading misinformation is more dangerous than regular trolling. Of course, it can require research to determine whether or not something is mis/disinformation. Obviously this is a complicated subject and other social media platforms haven't even figured it out yet.
Your #3 is a really good point. If someone posts their opinion in the body, there are likely to be downvotes based on that opinion even when the article has its own merits.