Determining what is, and what is not, misinformation seems:
1. Intractable. How exactly do you propose to accurately vet every bit of information posted to facebook?
2. Dangerous. Who does the vetting? If it's an algorithm, who writes the algorithm? No matter which way you slice it, "doing more to stop the spread of misinformation" imposes someone's 'one true view' of reality and stifles the engine of western civilization: the open, competitive marketplace of ideas.
This is clearly an emotionally driven sentiment caused by the moral outcry of a person considered 'bigoted' being elected to office. Stifling political expression will only make Trump/next trump/next next trump's populist appeal stronger.
>Fighting harassment is the opposite of collectivism. It seeks to allow each individual the greatest opportunity to express themselves freely, as themselves.
... by curtailing the freedoms of other individuals, in the name of group wellbeing.
Regardless of whether harassment is collectivist or not, I was simply pointing out that feeling guilty for actions of people in a similar demographic group to you (an overtly collectivist action) is currently wildly popular.
>none of them become the target of organized harassment campaigns.
That's quite dismissive of men who have become the target of harassment campaigns.
>The notion that women should write under pen names while men freely and safely claim credit for any random achievement is a perfect example of how this industry allows itself to be rigged against women. Women aren't even supposed to identify themselves --- when they do, they're just allowing themselves to be victimized by the forces of nature, which apparently include mobs of misogynist trolls.
There are plenty of men who cannot safely claim credit for their writings, though the reason is usually ideological rather than rooted in their identity. If you, as a man or a woman, post something which is found disagreeable by a large majority of your peers in 2016, someone will come after your job. Someone will try to find out where you live. To ignore this problem and solely focus on the fact that women receive snide, misogynist comments sometimes when they write innocuous articles seems intellectually dishonest.
If you post content on the internet, it's not reasonable to expect that no one will find issues, disagree, or even directly confront you over the content you post. While outright, persistent harassment is undeniably a problem, the 'solutions' proposed to solve it invariably impose onerous restrictions on freedom.
If 'harassment' is to be filtered content, then you must appoint someone to decide what is harassment and what is not. This person (or algorithm) will select what they view as harassment based on their ideological position. It's a far simpler and less dangerous task to block or ignore unwanted information than it is to filter every tweet, email, and status update and decide if it qualifies as 'harassment' or not.
This is a problem that transcends identity. There is an urge to control the discourse. It shows up when basement-dwellers harass a medium author for posting an article they find goes against their ideals, and it shows up when people like Curtis Yarvin are denied entry to conferences because they post political opinions that others disagree with. Some indie game devs get harassed to the point where they feel too unsafe to stay in their homes, and some indie devs have people persistently trying to make them unemployed and unemployable.