Tl;dr — The policy isn’t meant to stifle creativity or debate. Merely to ensure we’re not platforming fake news.

1. “The Covid-19 vaccine isn’t effective and it’s dangerous...” Disapproved. All the best experts and research suggests it’s very effective and quite safe, especially when compared to actually catching Covid.

2. “I’m choosing not to take the Covid vaccine because of personal reasons.” Approved. A statement of one’s own actions and opinions, and there are potentially valid reasons for not taking it.

Thanks for clearing that up for people!

There's always the Politics stream if these rules are too much.

Examples of challenges:

1. “You have to unfeature that. CNN is fake news.” Improper. Generalized statements attacking the credibility of a mainstream news organization aren’t sufficient to even initiate an investigation.

2. “That story is fake news. Trump said so.” Challenges that rely upon the credibility of serial proven liars aren’t sufficient. If Trump denied something, it’s actually more likely to be evidence that it happened. A complaint like this will be investigated, but not for very long, as that’s how long it will take to show Trump was wrong.

3. “Breitbart debunked that story. Here’s a link.” Media outlets like Breitbart have major credibility problems, but a report like this will be investigated. However, don’t be surprised if some digging and independent verification reveals that the Breitbart story you linked selectively presented or omitted information.

4. “Here’s a link to [insert credible news or fact-checking site] that debunks the assertion”: A proper challenge that will be carefully reviewed by our mod team.

Some examples:

1. “Biden wants to end the filibuster” — Disapproved. To my knowledge, Biden has not stated he wants to end the filibuster explicitly. (If I’m wrong and he has, feel free to link it.)

2. “I believe Biden should pressure Congress to end the filibuster” — Approved, as it is a statement of one’s own opinion about what Biden should do.