@wizzwizz4 eh, I have no position on whether it should be added in the first place :) Just a note about the proposed sentence being unnecessarily verbose.

You mean "utilising excess verbiage when considered with respect to some minimal textual representation of the intended meaning"? :-P

Using standardised, concise wording is definitely a good idea (and that suggestion's excellent), but it has to come after we know what needs to be said. (It's not long since I figured that one out myself; it's probably obvious non-wisdom to everyone else.)

@wizzwizz4 I guess so xD

@wizzwizz4 yeah. I believe the current iteration under discussion is way too focused on contemporary struggles in the US specifically + would benefit greatly from more rigorous definitions of what counts as misleading information (I think the other sections are more or less well-defined). Trying not to get too tangled into all this, though, as my attention is split enough as it is, and, besides, today's the cut-off date anyway (which is a shame, really, it would benefit from a couple more weeks)

@wizzwizz4 Coming back to intent: I think the misleading information section should show more restraint than "these are examples", precisely because of your later message that "not limited to" could mean anything. I think it's important that it spells out what isn't okay. The first bullet point there is already pretty general "is likely to significantly contribute to the risk of physical or psychological harm" and I think if something can't even cross that bar, it's hard to justify removal.

we've added a couple things though. There's now a "or coordinated misleading information campaigns" and also a "newsworthy" clause added to historical events.