1. admin & moderator workload is real. reducing harms to users is real.
2. moderating false information which may mislead or increase likelihood of harm is not inherently divisive, and is sometimes required by law
3. only for people who want to consume misinformation
4. impossible to do perfectly, but certainly able to be done well
5. the server you administer publicly blocks 2 servers. this suggests you, along with most service providers, have applied editorial standards.
I'm not arguing for consuming misinfo. I block for harassment. And yes, misinfo can lead to real harm.
But the way we best figure out what's true is dialogue and sharing good journalism/science. Not admins being referee. What I fear they will usually do is take the current consensus position, with a bias towards their user base. Alternative but sometimes correct views will struggle to find a place they can be posted that is well federated to go viral and correct misunderstanding.
>I fear they will take the current consensus position
Some will, some won't. Some will focus not only on misinformation and harassment, but also on the numerous other issues that also warrant intervention to reduce harm.
Here's 34 of them: https://connect.iftas.org/library/iftas-documentation/shared-vocabulary-labels/
You are free to operate your service exactly as you please.
So is everyone else.
1/2
Fostering spaces where alternative viewpoints can be responsibly discussed and debated is important, but these spaces also need mechanisms to distinguish between genuinely insightful dissent and inauthentic behaviour that can lead to harm.