[pbhjpbhj]

Cut off those using ad hominems. Fact check. All opinion should be labelled. Only one identity per person. Any associations or biases are public.

Do all that then I can't see what's hard about it ;oP.

Genuinely though, I think those things are doable. You probably have to have people use their own irl identities (at least the platform needs that information), which is problematic if you want free and open debate.

[edgyquant]

Fact checking is basically impossible as most things aren’t black and white and open to various interpretations. The idea of fact checkers online has been totally rejected because fact checkers themselves are vulnerable to bias and ideological capture.

[freedomben]

Indeed. A few years ago I spent a lot of time "fact checking" things, and it's nearly impossible because there is way more speculation/interpretation of "facts" than most people think. Misleading headline writing makes this even worse because a lot of people don't read beyond the headline, or if they do they interpret the factual body of the article through a lens framed by the headline. The NY Times are exceptionally good at this. Read the article and it's factually correct, but different interpretations and the subtle insertion of opinions (often through headlines) . I'm not trying to shit on NYT here. NYT is still among the best sources, despite their imperfections. But it illustrates well the challenge.

[pbhjpbhj]

Perfect fact checking, sure, but fact checking to the point of "this information comes from here", this person said this in this video, et cetera, is attainable.

[ragall]

It might not be possible to check every assertion, but in most cases it's possible.

[edgyquant]

No in most cases it’s not actually and only a small subset of things humans deal with have black and white true/false answers