Thanks for a prompt and fairly detailed response. I wanted to wait a few days to see if the post attracted any discussion in the comments but this hasn't happened. I'd like to respond to what you have to say in brief and without provoking argument:
My perception is that the issue of 'danger' arises when something is done with information - ie. it is the use to which it is put rather than anything inherent in something that is of itself inert. I'd wanted to explore this idea in the post and comments.
The 'fact-checking' issue is problematic IMO because it introduces the bias of the fact-checker (human or human-created algorithm) as a middle-entity which presents information in a simplified black-and-white manner (true or false). Not only does this discourage research, it also turns 'fact-checkers' into gatekeepers of information ('allowed' vs 'not allowed'). This is undoubtedly happening in the world-at-large. I'm concerned about this being replicated on Hive.
I did suggest in my post that 'allowed' on Hive - as I was using the word - meant 'allowed to be visible' by, for example, not downvoting. I suggested there is a desire to make certain content lower in visibility, a conscious and stated intention by an unknown number of folk with hefty wallets. The type of content I am referring to is the stuff generally labelled 'conspiracy': for example information that claims to demonstrate the harmful nature of the current global 'vaccination' programme. It is the type of content that your interlocutor (quoted as replying to you) says can cause 'significant harm'. I'd wondered about whether you agreed as I considered that that might be a bias that enters the system you are designing. You did clear that up somewhat by indicating what you did about how the rating system will work, and I leave it there - your opinion being no biz of mine beyond the mentioned concern :).
There's obviously much more to say but I doubt much point in doing so, especially since the post and the ideas haven't had much traction :(.
I thank you again for taking the time to respond.
I somehow missed your reply previously, but then someone just left me another reply on this post (calling me a "whack job" as it happens, so I guess the emotional temperature of this post is high for some people at least). Anyways, I suppose some good came out of it as I can reply now.
Sure, in a completely abstract sense, false information does no harm, if no one relies on it (the "use to which it is put"). But your argument is completely impractical, IMO. The whole point of spreading information is for people to make use of it. That is the purpose of communication. So it's a specious argument, IMO.
When someone conveys information, false or not, there is an intent for it to be used in some way (although, in some forms, such as fiction, it is just meant to entertain). But from the context of your post, it is obvious you're not referring to information that purports to be fictional in nature.
It sounds to me you're objecting to fact-checkers who you believe have an outsized amount of power in persuading others they are speaking the truth. I presume you don't object to fact checkers who are fact-checking mainstream media, for example. Or do you? Are you saying that no one should fact-check anyone and we should just listen to each person individually and make a decision about the truth of that person without relying on input from anyone else? I think it would be best if you clarify what you think should and shouldn't be allowed with respect to fact-checking, because I think you're trying to coat a generic term with a lot of extra meaning.
To your first point: free-flowing information itself does not seem to be dangerous, rather the application of info (the use to which it is put) that can take forms which may be considered dangerous by some or many - a knife may be used to cut tomatoes or fingers and some may blame the knife as much as the person wielding it. Information can also simply be 'used' to inform and, arguably, informing ourselves is what we are doing with info all the time. An action may be triggered by one specific bit of info/data yet itself be a much more complex thing born of multiple info/data points, thus giving the superficial impression that this or that bit of info is 'dangerous'.
To your second point, I'll quote myself from the article and hope it clarifies my view of 'fact-checking':
I'm going to Post this again...
Some of the people IN CHARGE of the Downvoting such as @blocktrades have made some terrible errors here. ... Terrible errors.
People who FEAR information need to go.
...or perform alchemy even: transforming FEAR by facing it square on unflinchingly!
Been Facing THIS sQuarely for some time..
... the flinching is from the Dyskinisia.