Covid Discussion on GRB

[Jocephus]

i know thats meant to be a salve but i know what empathetic means and i do not understand nor share the feeling that going to the grocery store is dystopian and gov't overreach and i'm happy to state that publicly and i don't see how that type of commentary builds connections between two differing sides on this particular issue. i also would hope your plea applies to the anti's.

i dont think im really that active in these threads anymore but the discourse here is just the same nationally, awful.

It was just a small comment in the context of a hyperbolic rant demonstrating pandemic fatigue.

wasn't small, was the entire post. i agree with you though, it certainly was a hyperbolic rant.

[TheoSqua]

and who decides what is "misinformation"? Sure seems like A LOT of recent taboo talking points have had their day in the sun. What is deemed malarkey today because of whose mouth it came out of, has been debunked and now MSM is allowed to 'report' on it. Slippery slopes for everyone.

There is a somewhat famous quote around not being able to define pornography, but you know it when you see it.

I would expect our moderation on misinformation would have a similar feel to it.

As mods, all we can promise is that we will do our best to keep the forum well moderated and fair, and keep open communication with the posters on the forum.

But let’s take for example Robert Malone, who prior to the pandemic was considered a highly esteemed scientist in his fields of study….but since he has come out in opposition of this vaccine is now highly considered “misinformation” by the MSM narrative. If we were to post something from him, would that be considered “misinformation”?

I wouldn't consider him misinformation personally. I would expect that if you sourced Robert Malone, it would be quickly pointed out that his views are generally contrary to mainstream scientific consensus on the subject.

If he had a view that myself or another mod truly did consider misinformation and we weren't comfortable allowing that viewpoint on the forum, we would discuss that concern with the other mods and get a consensus. Then contact the poster privately to discuss our concerns.

I haven't read every single post in some of our more controversial threads, but I personally have not seen any posts that I feel are outright misinformation.

Really the goal of that part of my post was to establish precedent, with the intent to make sure that GRB never condones the equivalent of a the-earth-is-flat facebook group.

[MinorLeagueGuy]

and who decides what is "misinformation"? Sure seems like A LOT of recent taboo talking points have had their day in the sun. What is deemed malarkey today because of whose mouth it came out of, has been debunked and now MSM is allowed to 'report' on it. Slippery slopes for everyone.

There is a somewhat famous quote around not being able to define pornography, but you know it when you see it.

I would expect our moderation on misinformation would have a similar feel to it.

As mods, all we can promise is that we will do our best to keep the forum well moderated and fair, and keep open communication with the posters on the forum.

Ok. A big concern for someone who's looking to inform themselves, without the use of MSM, is the non-definition that "you know it when you see it" poses when for instance YouTube/Twitter/FB wont allow CDC statistics that are true(posted on their actual website/s) to be discussed/linked because it might be inflammatory. Example; the FDA and CDC arent/werent on the same page regarding efficacy. One saying the juice will prevent transmission totally, while the other stated the sauce should/could prevent transmission. <-- Because the narrative cant have leaky logic, YouTube slaps timeouts, or bans channels that have point that out using direct links. Same goes with the therapeutics discussions that have been squashed in leu of one singular approach to 'surviving' the scourge.