[thedevil]

Out of curiosity, I looked for their policies on misinformation.

I could see some potential risks here but it still seems reasonable to me:

> Demonstrably inaccurate content

> YMYL content that contradicts well-established expert consensus

> Debunked or unsubstantiated conspiracy theories

This part, I imagine, is a bit more controversial:

> pages that potentially spread hate, cause harm, or misinform or deceive users, should receive the Lowest rating.

[ppod]

I think the first few are problematic too. Which conspiracy theories? Moon landing, pizzagate, Epstein? No idea where to draw a line there.

Demonstrably inaccurate? I doubt they remove young earth creationists. It seems easy at first, but it doesn't take long to find a lot of gray areas.

[skybrian]

This is going to be based on conventional wisdom. The evaluators are a biased representation of general public. What do most people think are conspiracy theories?

Despite all the policy guidelines, in the end it's not just a legalistic decision but more like a survey to see what people think.

If you're running a search engine, you need to track of what people think somehow, or you'll totally miss things like cultural issues.

[stevenicr]

This (and other things about not knowing who the manual raters are, or what cultures they come from and bring to the conscious ans subconscious table)should be of concern.

Depending on what region of the world the publisher is in, and what region his/her readers are in.. and where the raters are from, can make some issues.

Some years ago I sat in a class at a college for building contractors when the subject of burying electrical lines came up, people scoffed at the cost, then the teacher did a survey and found that 90% of the class thought radon gas was a fairy tale conspiracy theory, not real, and not something they would ever consider when building.

Half of those in the class had already been in the building professions for years and some cases generations.