Hello, I worked on a concept to identify what content should be published or not. This is just a concept, an idea, nothing more.

The idea is that I or someone else can send a text/meme/article, and then it can be discussed or published on the website. “Published on the website” means the entity/project officially stands behind it. Forum posts, conversations, etc., don’t count as official publications.

But I think this schema can be used for more than just content publishing. Maybe for checking information in general.

I included “clean” and “unclean” because there is a distinction between “professional” and “casual”. Imagine:

• Clean = less controversial, trying to avoid controversies.
• Unclean = not as important, controversy is okay, it doesn’t have to protect the project’s public image.

This is the reason why, if the content is “good” but controversial, it could land on Absurdnautic. It’s more like ensuring the content doesn’t go to waste.

Also, “council” and “clean agree” are more or less theoretical group concepts right now. (They don’t actually exist yet.)

We can discuss long whether an opinion is “information” or if every fact is an opinion, but I decided to divide them. I personally believe that any information, article, or research is always an opinion. Even facts can be opinionated. For example: “I have these facts so I am right, and the other presents other facts so they are right.”

Critique: I see some problems in this schema myself, like defining “hate” or the “(un)clean” rules. There is room for manipulation: What is hate? What is a valid source? And so on.

However, I think the best aspect of the schema is the fact-checking definition. I always see articles but never the primary source. It also forces every side to look at the other sides (Angel’s Advocate / Devil’s Advocate).