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.
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.
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.
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.
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.