95 upvotes, 3 direct replies (showing 3)
View submission: An update on COVID-19 policies and actions
Our misinformation reporting flow is vaguely-worded and thus vaguely-used, and there’s a specific need for identifying interference.
You need a standard. You need something to contrast the information to. That's an 'authoritative source' according to /u/Spez, who also specifically named the CDC as one example.
The misinformation rule is so vaguely worded, it seems intentional.
How can you possibly say that this is simply interference, when the real terms are misinformation and disinformation? This is an outrageous copout and one that continues to allow your security team and executives to not hold yourselves accountable to.
Comment by [deleted] at 01/09/2021 at 19:04 UTC
37 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by WorseThanHipster at 01/09/2021 at 23:04 UTC
11 upvotes, 0 direct replies
To a certain degree defining things too far can make things pretty difficult. People adapt very quickly now a days to skirting rules. As soon as someone finds a way to talk themselves past them or circumvent them or detection, others pick up on it and now you’ve specifically designed a hole that you really can’t plug without taking a bit of damage to your integrity. So you gotta be careful, and there will always be a lot of human discretion involved anyways.
Brigading is basically directing people to interfere with another community. But if you define it very strictly that way “please spread this information in that community” quickly becomes “they are trying to suppress this information!��� but the result ends up being the same.
Comment by garrypig at 01/09/2021 at 20:56 UTC*
-25 upvotes, 1 direct replies
We should fact check misinformation to prevent this kind of stuff