Hell no, I’m not vouching for defederation or defending those communities in any way. Step back and look at the bigger picture with me. I think there are potential problems with moderating based on vague and non-concrete things, and I’m trying to further the discussion so we define them better together.

If we’re going to remove the communities OP is referring to, for example, we need to define (1) what qualifies as misinformation and trolling, and (2) what content/communities/users we’re proposing to remove in the future.

If we use dictionary definitions…

misinformation: false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive

troll: a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post

…then admins will have the new responsibility of (1) deciding whether content is true or false, (2) determining the intent of the content creator, and (3) deciding what is offensive or provocative.

Are we going to remove content if it offends someone? Will admins be deleting content based on the assumed intentions of the creator?

That’s not the instance I signed up for, and it also goes against basic human rights. I can see it being highly problematic for moderators and admins in the long run unless we move away from being a “general purpose” instance.

The one problem is, specifically with this type of conversation, anyone even in the center is not welcome in the conversation because the echo chamber is so strong that anything even in the center is instantly labeled "misinformation". Who decides what the difference between "opinion I disagree with" and "misinformation" is? Far too often it's left to a person or group, be it on the left or the right, that holds that anything they or the most vocal political users disagree with is "dangerous misinformation". And I tend to notice that unless it's a specific right-wing instance like explodingheads, anything that's not on the far left is either down voted to oblivion or outright removed and anyone who posts or says anything positive about it is effectively driven out, including people who argue such things in good faith. That tends to lead to the creation of such instances as explodingheads and attitudes like the people who reside there.

You trying to have a conversation or are you trying to insult me?

It’s the same concept of destroying history or literature. The bad parts of history are just as valuable as the good parts of history. Destroying the bad destroys our ability to see the full picture and learn from it.

Dude, not cool.

I get where the comment is coming from. I followed Qanon drops even though I know it's batshit crazy and completely untrue. I just want to know exactly what the conspiracy theorists and right wing chuds believe in. It's a "know your enemy" situation, but it also helps me to determine who to avoid and how to deal with crazy people.