You Should Know

What is and isn't selective depends on your perspective. You're moving into the question of what counts as relevant and important, which is inherently ideological.

If country A launches a missile at country B, then it's probably relevant if country B launched a missile yesterday, which would frame country A as retaliating. But if country A launched a missile a week ago, do you also include that? What about actions from a year or more ago? What about inflammatory rhetoric, or broken promises? What about differences in military might, or economic interests like oil?

Every source has to make decisions about what to include and what not to include, and there's no objective basis to do so. To try to apply the label of "misinformation" in that context is just censoring narratives and perspectives that are out of line with your own.

I could easily point out the biased reporting of The New York Times on various issues like Palestine or trans people (which in several cases have gone into overt misinformation). But I'd rather be able to see and discuss that source while understanding what it's biases are, rather than writing it off completely and potentially missing out on actual information. You don't just block every source you disagree with.

Sometimes I feel like liberals fundamentally misunderstand how sources work, sorting them into "good" or "bad" and leaving no room for nuance. Sources can be reliable about one thing but not another, and there's no such thing as a source with no bias.

Because it doesn't matter.

A source that provides exclusive, true information about politicians, but that also has a political bias, is not something that should be blocked outright as though it were misinformation. Otherwise you'd have to block just about every source.

I mean, hell. I sometimes watch John Oliver despite disagreeing with some of his politics and considering him to present a biased or incomplete picture of certain subjects, because I sometimes learn about true things I would not have otherwise been informed about. I'll criticize him, but I'm not going to call for him to be blocked, especially not in the code like this.

At a certain point, you're just censoring proven facts, just on the basis of who said them.

I notice you haven't apologized for removing the people calling out bad faith users on .world but didn't remove the people spreading misinfo about the people calling out bad faith users.