I'm worried about the possible effect the Covid Denial Thread

[scotia]

We now have a Covid Denial Thread, which is driven by one eccentric new member, while others attempt to rationally debunk his views. And this is going on and on and on. There is of course no intention by the new member to stop - although he has promised to do so.
After the recent judgement on the Sandy Hook massacre, a number of the major players on the internet will be searching their output (and the output of others, like the Lemon Fool, whom they currently support with advertising) to ensure they are not supporting such falsehoods.
Could the Covid Denial Thread end up losing our advertising support from Google? I'm sure that a robotic search of our site would pick up lots of mis-information from the Covid Denial Thread.
Is it time to close it down, and invite our new member to go off elsewhere?

[Gerry557]

Allowing someone to express an opinion, rightly or wrongly does not necessarily mean you support that notion.

The poster hasn't seemed to convince anyone by the looks of things to support his point of view and in fact, it makes him look more like an outlier.

[dealtn]

It would worry me we can't allow reasonable discussion on what is called a (Shares, Investment and Personal Finance) Discussion Forum. I think the site has long given up on adhering to those parts within the parentheses sadly, but if other threads can stand I don't see why that one can't too.

This site behaves and is populated as an echo chamber too often as it is.

[pje16]

I posted once to that thread, so I got notifications when there were new posts, shortly after I unsubscribed, no prizes for guessing why
so I am not worried by the thread, I ignore it
PS thanks for this post @scotia

[Mike4]

Allowing someone to express an opinion, rightly or wrongly does not necessarily mean you support that notion.

The poster hasn't seemed to convince anyone by the looks of things to support his point of view and in fact, it makes him look more like an outlier.

I think this misses the point of the OP.

Yes its fine to welcome people here with views opposing one's own. What is not so fine is for those views to contravene the policies of Google, with which this site needs to comply.

You may say stuff Google it's nothing to do with them, but it is. Google may well respond by shutting down this site's advertising revenue because it publishes Covid misinformation, contrary to the T&Cs the site owners signed up to. Is that fine too?

[Gerry557]

Allowing someone to express an opinion, rightly or wrongly does not necessarily mean you support that notion.

The poster hasn't seemed to convince anyone by the looks of things to support his point of view and in fact, it makes him look more like an outlier.

I think this misses the point of the OP.

Yes its fine to welcome people here with views opposing one's own. What is not so fine is for those views to contravene the policies of Google, with which this site needs to comply.

You may say stuff Google it's nothing to do with them, but it is. Google may well respond by shutting down this site's advertising revenue because it publishes Covid misinformation, contrary to the T&Cs the site owners signed up to. Is that fine too?

I think a lot of the posts on the other thread are available on Google anyway so don't see why there would be an issue.

I didn't check all the posters links so maybe if there are any misinformation ones it should be highlighted and fact checked. This would also highlight the competence of the poster, should there be numerous errors found.

Of course some might be links to data that whilst not misinformation have been interpreted wrongly by the poster to suit his bias. Hopefully different interpretations can counter and individuals can make there own minds up if he is correct or being erroneous again.

[Mike4]

Allowing someone to express an opinion, rightly or wrongly does not necessarily mean you support that notion.

The poster hasn't seemed to convince anyone by the looks of things to support his point of view and in fact, it makes him look more like an outlier.

I think this misses the point of the OP.

Yes its fine to welcome people here with views opposing one's own. What is not so fine is for those views to contravene the policies of Google, with which this site needs to comply.

You may say stuff Google it's nothing to do with them, but it is. Google may well respond by shutting down this site's advertising revenue because it publishes Covid misinformation, contrary to the T&Cs the site owners signed up to. Is that fine too?

I think a lot of the posts on the other thread are available on Google anyway so don't see why there would be an issue.

I didn't check all the posters links so maybe if there are any misinformation ones it should be highlighted and fact checked. This would also highlight the competence of the poster, should there be numerous errors found.

Of course some might be links to data that whilst not misinformation have been interpreted wrongly by the poster to suit his bias. Hopefully different interpretations can counter and individuals can make there own minds up if he is correct or being erroneous again.

Whilst agreeing with most of what you say, it still misses the fundamental point, which is a concern that Google might arbitrarily rule that this site hosts Covid misinformation and close its advertising account.

Google has a track record for this and trying to argue with them about it is like shouting into an empty canyon. Email them and nothing comes back other than an automated AI response quoting their T&Cs at you, apparently (according to articles I've heard on the BBC about this problem).

(Edit to delete some stray words!)

[Lanark]

I think there is more than enough covid misinformation on the web, even the once useful Dr John Campbell (youtuber) has started spreading some utter nonsense: "excess deaths happened in the last 2 years, vaccine roll-out happened in the last 2 years, so they must be linked".

The problem is that when barely numerate, gullible people start buying into daft theories, they can be very difficult to dissuade.

Social media is just not the right place to go looking for medical advice. I'd be quite happy for that thread to be closed and/or deleted.

[mc2fool]

I think a lot of the posts on the other thread are available on Google anyway so don't see why there would be an issue.

I didn't check all the posters links so maybe if there are any misinformation ones it should be highlighted and fact checked. This would also highlight the competence of the poster, should there be numerous errors found.

Of course some might be links to data that whilst not misinformation have been interpreted wrongly by the poster to suit his bias. Hopefully different interpretations can counter and individuals can make there own minds up if he is correct or being erroneous again.

I don't know what you mean by "available on Google". Is it simply that you can find them using Google's search engine?

In any case, from Google AdSense Help (this is the advertising system that Lemonfool earns from when folks see/click on the ads hosted on TLF):

Policies
Google Publisher Policies
:
When you monetize your content with Google ad code you are required to adhere to the following policies. Failure to comply with these policies may result in Google blocking ads from appearing against your content, or suspending or terminating your account.
:
Unreliable and harmful claims
We do not allow content that:
:
promotes harmful health claims, or relates to a current, major health crisis and contradicts authoritative scientific consensus.
Examples: Anti-vaccine advocacy, denial of the existence of medical conditions such as AIDS or Covid-19, gay conversion therapy

https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/10502938

The main poster in the Covid Denial Thread has repeatedly claimed that Covid-19 doesn't exist (nor HIV) and is fully fledged into anti-vaccine advocacy, claiming that the vaccines are all about global depopulation by "the elite", which I do believe contradicts authoritative scientific consensus.

[GoSeigen]

I think a lot of the posts on the other thread are available on Google anyway so don't see why there would be an issue.

I didn't check all the posters links so maybe if there are any misinformation ones it should be highlighted and fact checked. This would also highlight the competence of the poster, should there be numerous errors found.

Of course some might be links to data that whilst not misinformation have been interpreted wrongly by the poster to suit his bias. Hopefully different interpretations can counter and individuals can make there own minds up if he is correct or being erroneous again.

I don't know what you mean by "available on Google". Is it simply that you can find them using Google's search engine?

In any case, from Google AdSense Help (this is the advertising system that Lemonfool earns from when folks see/click on the ads hosted on TLF):

Policies
Google Publisher Policies
:
When you monetize your content with Google ad code you are required to adhere to the following policies. Failure to comply with these policies may result in Google blocking ads from appearing against your content, or suspending or terminating your account.
:
Unreliable and harmful claims
We do not allow content that:
:
promotes harmful health claims, or relates to a current, major health crisis and contradicts authoritative scientific consensus.
Examples: Anti-vaccine advocacy, denial of the existence of medical conditions such as AIDS or Covid-19, gay conversion therapy

https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/10502938

The main poster in the Covid Denial Thread has repeatedly claimed that Covid-19 doesn't exist (nor HIV) and is fully fledged into anti-vaccine advocacy, claiming that the vaccines are all about global depopulation by "the elite", which I do believe contradicts authoritative scientific consensus.

Thanks mc2fool. Based on the above I would support the moderators removing the offending thread and/or banning the poster. It is absolutely barking nonsense anyway. I wondered for a while if the poster was a bot, given that it appears not to listen and is bereft of logical reasoning?

GS

[pje16]

I would support the moderators removing the offending thread and/or banning the poster. It is absolutely barking nonsense anyway. I wondered for a while if the poster was a bot, given that it appears not to listen and is bereft of logical reasoning?
GS

Agreed “absolutely barking nonsense” sums it up a treat
It did cross my mind to wonder what it must be inside his head, and am glad it not mine

[Arborbridge]

As Mike4 explained, some of these posts miss the point.
It's of no import that some of this misinformation can be found of Google - it's irrelevant. We should be concerned about what can be found on TLF and whether is contravenes any codes we need to adhere to: whether one can read this material elsewhere is not our concern.

In this case, we've let the chap or chapess, have his say. If the material is in danger of contravening the Google advertising code and the future of TLF is being put at risk, then the course of action is clear: remove the thread, ban the poster unless he agrees to desist, then monitor closely. We cannot risk the future of TLF for a misjudged urge to defend free-speech.


Arb.

[dealtn]

As Mike4 explained, some of these posts miss the point.
It's of no import that some of this misinformation can be found of Google - it's irrelevant. We should be concerned about what can be found on TLF and whether is contravenes any codes we need to adhere to: whether one can read this material elsewhere is not our concern.

In this case, we've let the chap or chapess, have his say. If the material is in danger of contravening the Google advertising code and the future of TLF is being put at risk, then the course of action is clear: remove the thread, ban the poster unless he agrees to desist, then monitor closely. We cannot risk the future of TLF for a misjudged urge to defend free-speech.


Arb.

I don't think its for any poster to make that call though, and not start a thread canvassing the opinion of others. That should be the ordinary course of business of any owner, or publisher - be that on the internet or elsewhere. Anyone holding such concerns is more appropriately directed to contact the site owners privately in my view.

Posing the question to the site users, not owners

Is it time to close it down, and invite our new member to go off elsewhere?

is a way of introducing restrictions on anyone's freedom and rights of free speech. That is also the point that is being missed.

[GoSeigen]

Is it time to close it down, and invite our new member to go off elsewhere?

is a way of introducing restrictions on anyone's freedom and rights of free speech. That is also the point that is being missed.

Agree that it's ultimately a question for the site owner not the users. Don't agree with the above. Based on mc2fool's post this is a straightforward case of breaching the rules that the poster agreed to. If you break the rules you suffer the consequences. This is not censorship, he can express his points in a manner which doesn't breach the rules.

Personally, quite apart from the content, I find his posts when examined in the round extremely rude. This is a discussion board in which one is expected to engage and discuss issues with others at some level. This new poster appears to treat everyone else as idiots: they are sheep, they have given their soul to the govt, they are wearing blindfolds, they are dumb deniers, etc. I see little evidence of respectful acceptance that others might have a valid point of view or willingness to engage with others. He treats the site as a soap box from which to preach to the ignorant. All in my opinion, but if this is correct then I don't see how his posts are even compatible with TLF posting rules.

GS

[DrFfybes]

Could the Covid Denial Thread end up losing our advertising support from Google?

Doubtful. There are millions of Covid discussions on the internet, the vast majority without any side effects at all. Any effects seen are generally mild and short lived, with no long term effect on the health of the host. Only the extremely rare discussion results in serious injury or death to the host board. Of course, there will be people out there that say this is untrue, that there are thousands of boards and hosts being closed down due to discussing Covid, but they were all lies.

In all seriousness though, deniers will cherry pick facts from anywhere, and Jim's twaddle has been taken from elsewhere. I think locking the thread and preventing a new one opening is useful, but deleting it serves no purpose.

Paul

[Dod101]

Could the Covid Denial Thread end up losing our advertising support from Google?

Doubtful. There are millions of Covid discussions on the internet, the vast majority without any side effects at all. Any effects seen are generally mild and short lived, with no long term effect on the health of the host. Only the extremely rare discussion results in serious injury or death to the host board. Of course, there will be people out there that say this is untrue, that there are thousands of boards and hosts being closed down due to discussing Covid, but they were all lies.

In all seriousness though, deniers will cherry pick facts from anywhere, and Jim's twaddle has been taken from elsewhere. I think locking the thread and preventing a new one opening is useful, but deleting it serves no purpose.

Paul

Fundamentally this is up to the owners anyway but I would support at least locking the thread, and for all of us in the meanwhile to ignore it.

Dod

[mc2fool]

Is it time to close it down, and invite our new member to go off elsewhere?

is a way of introducing restrictions on anyone's freedom and rights of free speech. That is also the point that is being missed.

Agree that it's ultimately a question for the site owner not the users. Don't agree with the above. Based on mc2fool's post this is a straightforward case of breaching the rules that the poster agreed to. If you break the rules you suffer the consequences. This is not censorship, he can express his points in a manner which doesn't breach the rules.

Personally, quite apart from the content, I find his posts when examined in the round extremely rude. This is a discussion board in which one is expected to engage and discuss issues with others at some level. This new poster appears to treat everyone else as idiots: they are sheep, they have given their soul to the govt, they are wearing blindfolds, they are dumb deniers, etc. I see little evidence of respectful acceptance that others might have a valid point of view or willingness to engage with others. He treats the site as a soap box from which to preach to the ignorant. All in my opinion, but if this is correct then I don't see how his posts are even compatible with TLF posting rules.

GS

Completely agree with your second paragraph and, indeed, IMHO he's broken a good number of the TLF posting rules, at least the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th of the section 4 rules at app.php/rules.

On your first paragraph, to be clear, the rules in my previous post are Google Publisher Policies that the Lemon Fool site owners have agreed to in order to make use of and gain revenue from Google Adsense, but there's no reference to or anything reflecting those in the TLF rules, so those policies are not ones that posters have agreed to.

So maybe one takeaway for the site owners from all this is that an additional rule should be included in section 4 of the TLF rules:

Posters must respect and not violate the Google Publisher Policies listed at https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/10502938#content

[Arborbridge]

I don't think its for any poster to make that call though, and not start a thread canvassing the opinion of others. That should be the ordinary course of business of any owner, or publisher - be that on the internet or elsewhere. Anyone holding such concerns is more appropriately directed to contact the site owners privately in my view.

Posing the question to the site users, not owners

Isn't that what this board is doing?

[dealtn]

I don't think its for any poster to make that call though, and not start a thread canvassing the opinion of others. That should be the ordinary course of business of any owner, or publisher - be that on the internet or elsewhere. Anyone holding such concerns is more appropriately directed to contact the site owners privately in my view.

Posing the question to the site users, not owners

Isn't that what this board is doing?

Judging by some of the replies, no.

[Clariman]

Thanks again for bringing this to our attention. I have locked the topic and will take a close look at it. In the meantime, I thought I'd clarify a few things here.

We now have a Covid Denial Thread, which is driven by one eccentric new member

The poster is not a new member. They registered for the site shortly after it was set up in 2016 and have occasionally posted on other boards in a perfectly reasonable manner.

It would worry me we can't allow reasonable discussion on what is called a (Shares, Investment and Personal Finance) Discussion Forum. I think the site has long given up on adhering to those parts within the parentheses sadly, but if other threads can stand I don't see why that one can't too.

The Lemon Fool was set up to provide a home for The Motley Fool's community who had enjoyed discussions on a wide range of topics, but with finance at its core. TLF was set up to do the same, but with a far smaller number of boards. Threads that break site rules or may harm the site's future will rightly be called into question.

As a number of users have pointed out there are two fundamental questions here. Firstly, have existing site rules been broken and, secondly, could it jeopardise the future of the site, by contravening Google's ad revenue rules? I think some members forget what the status of this site is. It is not a publisher and money-making enterprise like The Motley Fool, Moneysupermarket or a whole host of other sites. It was started by 2 ex-Fools as a service to the former TMF community. Although it is now legally owned by Lemonfool Ltd., that is Stooz, so the site's basic nature has not changed. It can only exist because of voluntary subscriptions and Google Ad revenue - and it remains free to use.

So maybe one takeaway for the site owners from all this is that an additional rule should be included in section 4 of the TLF rules:

Posters must respect and not violate the Google Publisher Policies listed at https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/10502938#content

Good idea thanks.