As long as they’re genuinely democratic, they’re just the audience giving feedback

They are 100% fact checking.

fact checking, yes. Soft-censorship, i don't think so, since they do not reduce the reach of the "fact checked" posts. (unlike the "fact checking" done by facebook and such)

Hmm because the original posts aren't censored(?) it's like a rating on Google reviews. In theory at least. No?

yup fact checking but nostr dont have to copy twitter, we can be #1 source of fake news lol

They are fact-checking. That’s the intent.

Because everything is a loaded term these days. Checking a fact isn't a bad thing. Checking an opinion for fact statements isn't inherently bad. Public discourse upon such facts, not bad. Put it all together....aaaaaand now it's censorship and bad and all that. Censorship generally doesn't leave the...

I'm a community note creator on XTwitter and it's an uphill battle trying to fact check misinformation over there. FWIW, I was also a news fact-checker editor at Hearst for years and it's an essential part of reporting and journalism.

I think it's time for social media to make it clear that absorbing "citizen journalism" as fact requires serious critical thinking skills on behalf of the public.

"Journalism" from biased reporters who are cheerleaders for the topic are a danger as well, not only for distortion of truth but also for personal agenda.

Journalism needs to be a fair and balanced reporting on both sides of an issue, from neutral third parties.