Member Poll: RF COVID-19 Policy Revisited

[Debater Slayer]

Hi, all,

Since the pandemic started, the staff has polled members twice about the forum's policy regarding posts concerning COVID-19 and implemented the approach that had the most votes. This is an excerpt from the latest poll thread, in order to clarify what the current policy is:

Specifically, this is the current policy as voted for by the majority of members who weighed in on the poll:

Option #4: The policy should allow information outside of the CDC and the WHO, but only from reputable sources (as determined by staff) even if it actively contradicts mainstream medical consensus.

Furthermore, statements about COVID that contradict mainstream medical consensus and are accompanied by a link, even a non-reputable one (as deemed by the staff), are usually not moderated formally and are instead removed from public view and followed by an explanation of why. However, statements that don't cite a link at all and contradict mainstream medical consensus on COVID-19 are formally moderated per Rule 9.

RF COVID-19 Policy Poll

Hi, everyone, In light of the developments since the RF staff last revised our policy on COVID-related posts, we have decided to create another poll to help us decide how to proceed regarding said posts. This was the last poll thread: Policy Poll: COVID-Related Posts Specifically, this is...

www.religiousforums.com

To summarize: The current policy allows views about COVID-19 that contradict the positions of the CDC and WHO, but only when accompanied by links to support them, and the links have to be to sources deemed reputable after staff review.

Since the latest poll, COVID-19 has become an endemic disease around the world, vaccines have become widely available, and information about the virus has been disseminated and reiterated in various venues. The purpose of the policy against COVID misinformation was to ensure that no posts on RF contributed to spreading dangerous, potentially life-threatening misinformation about a pandemic disease. Given how much the situation with the virus has changed since, we believe that another poll about the policy is necessary.

Should we keep the current policy in place, should we modify it, or should we entirely remove it and allow all views about COVID-19 even if they contradict medical organizations and/or are not accompanied by links (whether from sources deemed reputable per staff review or otherwise)?

If you would like to suggest a policy modification, please do so either here or in Site Feedback, but please keep Rule 2 in mind and keep any discussion of individual instances of moderation exclusively in Site Feedback.

Thank you.

 

[Revoltingest]

Remove the policy.
Return to what passes for normal on RF.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Hi, all,

Since the pandemic started, the staff has polled members twice about the forum's policy regarding posts concerning COVID-19 and implemented the approach that had the most votes. This is an excerpt from the latest poll thread, in order to clarify what the current policy is:

RF COVID-19 Policy Poll

Hi, everyone, In light of the developments since the RF staff last revised our policy on COVID-related posts, we have decided to create another poll to help us decide how to proceed regarding said posts. This was the last poll thread: Policy Poll: COVID-Related Posts Specifically, this is...

www.religiousforums.com

To summarize: The current policy allows views about COVID-19 that contradict the positions of the CDC and WHO, but only when accompanied by links to support them, and the links have to be to sources deemed reputable after staff review.

Since the latest poll, COVID-19 has become an endemic disease around the world, vaccines have become widely available, and information about the virus has been disseminated and reiterated in various venues. The purpose of the policy against COVID misinformation was to ensure that no posts on RF contributed to spreading dangerous, potentially life-threatening misinformation about a pandemic disease. Given how much the situation with the virus has changed since, we believe that another poll about the policy is necessary.

Should we keep the current policy in place, should we modify it, or should we entirely remove it and allow all views about COVID-19 even if they contradict medical organizations and/or are not accompanied by links (whether from sources deemed reputable per staff review or otherwise)?

If you would like to suggest a policy modification, please do so either here or in Site Feedback, but please keep Rule 2 in mind and keep any discussion of individual instances of moderation exclusively in Site Feedback.

Thank you.

I think it's censorship, control of speech, so I would advise it to be removed. COVID it's over anyways.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I vote for free speech on the issue.

 

[Revoltingest]

COVID it's over anyways.

It's not over.
But it's now endemic rather than a pandemic.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's not over.
But it's now endemic rather than a pandemic.

It's morphed into something more manageable now. Like the Spanish Flu has.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I would remove the policy pending a compelling argument for reinstating it.

 

[Eddi]

The emergency is now over

So the emergency measures must now come to an end

 

[ChristineM]

Remove the policy but keep the forum under the same rules as the rest of RF. Handy for COVID news snd updates.

 

[sun rise]

COVID it's over anyways.

Bull****. It's endemic. And this is exactly the kind of post that is a problem. I would change the rule to require a link when someone posts ANY medical information unless it's labeled "OPINION:"

 

[VoidCat]

Bull****. It's endemic. And this is exactly the kind of post that is a problem. I would change the rule to require a link when someone posts ANY medical information unless it's labeled "OPINION:"

I like the idea of this being the case. It can be dangerous to spread medical info and not have evidence backing it up. The only exception for this rule i think is with anecdotal stuff and even then it needs a claim that says to consult your doctor for medical issues.

Edit:
Like I use crystals for anxiety and meditation. This is not science backed. And I would not advice using crystals on their own to treat an anxiety disorder rather consult a doctor for other things that could help.

 

[VoidCat]

Like I use crystals for anxiety and meditation. This is not science backed. And I would not advice using crystals on their own to treat an anxiety disorder rather consult a doctor for other things that could

Then again if I claimed crystals healed my mom of say cancer that's dangerous mis(dis?)information could kill someone even if anedoctal and saying consult your doctor ain't going to help much.

 

[Quagmire]

Bull****. It's endemic. And this is exactly the kind of post that is a problem. I would change the rule to require a link when someone posts ANY medical information unless it's labeled "OPINION:"

That's really not a bad idea.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Bull****. It's endemic. And this is exactly the kind of post that is a problem. I would change the rule to require a link when someone posts ANY medical information unless it's labeled "OPINION:"

It's not opinion when you have real genuine medical professionals who didn't view Covid through a political lens like Fauci did.

AAPS Announces Updated COVID Booklet

An updated version of the popular booklet by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), A Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment, is now available and can be downloaded free from No C…

aapsonline.org

Resources

 

[metis]

Remove the policy but keep the forum under the same rules as the rest of RF. Handy for COVID news snd updates.

I 2nd that motion.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Bull****. It's endemic. And this is exactly the kind of post that is a problem. I would change the rule to require a link when someone posts ANY medical information unless it's labeled "OPINION:"

Calm down. It's not a public health emergency anymore and it's basically on the level as the flu. Get your boosters and stop freaking out so much. Feel free to have my share as I never got jabbed in the first place.

 

[Quagmire]

@Saint Frankenstein the forum could be held liable if someone posts dangerous medical advice.

Requiring a label saying "Opinion" would probably keep us covered.

Edit: not to mention make it less likely that someone would follow it in the first place.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

@Saint Frankenstein the forum could be held liable if someone posts dangerous medical advice.

Requiring a label saying "Opinion" would probably keep us covered.

That's a good, if sad, point.

 

[Kathryn]

Remove the policy and go by RF rules in general is my advice.

 

[Quagmire]

That's a good, if sad, point.

I just wish we would have had something like that before someone posted that eating rancid lard would improve my sex life.