Enhance
Administrator
This is sort of a difficult topic to approach because, in many ways, it mirrors issues we've had in the P&R forum for years.
Person A shares an opinion or post > Person B claims this information is 'misleading,' 'dangerous,' 'trolling,' 'worthy of moderator intervention,' etc.
I think, more often than not, there's a difference between trolling and sharing fringe opinions. To make this discussion more relative, just because some people think COVID-19 isn't that dangerous and it's going to destroy that economic foundations of country, that doesn't make them a troll or someone intentionally trying to spread misinformation. It could just be there opinion and they're entitled to it, no matter how wrong it may be.
So, I guess the question becomes this - where do we feel Huskerboard falls on the scale of responsibility for these types of things? We're a speck of sand in the overall online community so I don't think we're going to tip the scales very much one way or the other. But, do we have a responsibility to limit those opinions that may seem dangerously 'fringe' or 'misinformed,' or not? For example, when virtually every medical expert in the world is saying one thing, but @Thurston from Pender is sharing random blog insights from people saying the opposite, is that OK?
I don't think there's a wholly right or wrong answer here so mainly looking for opinions on where we stand as a group so we can be consistent in our message. I don't want to be the arbiter of what is legitimate virus information to share and what isn't, unless it's just so patently wrong and obvious in its attempts to troll or frighten people. I haven't seen much of that yet. I generally leans towards allowing opinions to be shared even if they're unpopular.
Person A shares an opinion or post > Person B claims this information is 'misleading,' 'dangerous,' 'trolling,' 'worthy of moderator intervention,' etc.
I think, more often than not, there's a difference between trolling and sharing fringe opinions. To make this discussion more relative, just because some people think COVID-19 isn't that dangerous and it's going to destroy that economic foundations of country, that doesn't make them a troll or someone intentionally trying to spread misinformation. It could just be there opinion and they're entitled to it, no matter how wrong it may be.
So, I guess the question becomes this - where do we feel Huskerboard falls on the scale of responsibility for these types of things? We're a speck of sand in the overall online community so I don't think we're going to tip the scales very much one way or the other. But, do we have a responsibility to limit those opinions that may seem dangerously 'fringe' or 'misinformed,' or not? For example, when virtually every medical expert in the world is saying one thing, but @Thurston from Pender is sharing random blog insights from people saying the opposite, is that OK?
I don't think there's a wholly right or wrong answer here so mainly looking for opinions on where we stand as a group so we can be consistent in our message. I don't want to be the arbiter of what is legitimate virus information to share and what isn't, unless it's just so patently wrong and obvious in its attempts to troll or frighten people. I haven't seen much of that yet. I generally leans towards allowing opinions to be shared even if they're unpopular.
Last edited by a moderator: