Most egregious one I can remember seeing, off the top of my head, was that screenshot of a purported Scientific American article defending pedophilia. A commentor calls it out (with sources) as a doctored screen of what was originally a years old article on homosexuality and the user deletes his post right after.
Do I really want more rules? For the most part no.. Honestly I think our mods have done a good job there, but I don't think it'd hurt to have a requirement for links to the original source when possible when the post is a screenshot. Just something to require a modicum of effort and help give readers the info to verify what they're reading for themselves.
Thats fair.
Most egregious one I can remember seeing, off the top of my head, was that screenshot of a purported Scientific American article defending pedophilia. A commentor calls it out (with sources) as a doctored screen of what was originally a years old article on homosexuality and the user deletes his post right after.
Do I really want more rules? For the most part no.. Honestly I think our mods have done a good job there, but I don't think it'd hurt to have a requirement for links to the original source when possible when the post is a screenshot. Just something to require a modicum of effort and help give readers the info to verify what they're reading for themselves.