I had a lawyer friend who liked to post in a legal advice sub, moderated by someone in law enforcement, who banned him for posting information about your rights if you're arrested.
I think Flickr had this back when they were a big property. You'd have site admins look at your complaint and follow up as necessary.
It's be nice to have and if they have it that it'd be more active to keep things from going off the rails --within reason.
Any user supporting the incumbent government or speaking against Islamic terrorism gets banned.
Similar scenario on r/worldnews. Anti-Muslim posts get removed and users banned, while Anti-Hindu posts get to the front-page.
Reddit should make atleast the 'Official Country' subreddits from obvious bias/influence.
Are either of these claims falsifiable?
Unless it's a term I'm not aware of, a full investigation is still limited to human actors and limits.
I realize what the parent was attempting to say, but internet rumormongering is poor form.
The scientist seeking to determine if it is falsifiable. That no scientist has the resources necessary to do so now does not have bearing on determining if some claim is falsifiable or not.