I still think this is horribly wrong. Having groups "approve" information means having gatekeepers who wield a lot of power. Censors. Who is to ensure that t

I still think this is horribly wrong. Having groups "approve" information means having gatekeepers who wield a lot of power. Censors. Who is to ensure that they exercise that power both fairly and accurately? It opens a huge can of worms. It might seem to make sense for "obviously" black and white issues. But most are not so clear cut, and choosing a "correct" side is impossible. "False information" isn't countered by suppression. It's countered with facts and open discussion. I absolutely agree that the current state of affairs with social media is problematic. That's the reason I quit all of them and deleted my accounts permanently. But what you're advocating still amounts to censorship and a failure to treat individuals as capable of evidence-based rational thought, and is still the antithesis of what we want in an open and free society.