Thanks for a prompt and fairly detailed response. I wanted to wait a few days to see if the post attracted any discussion in the comments but this hasn't happened. I'd like to respond to what you have to say in brief and without provoking argument:

My perception is that the issue of 'danger' arises when something is done with information - ie. it is the use to which it is put rather than anything inherent in something that is of itself inert. I'd wanted to explore this idea in the post and comments.

The 'fact-checking' issue is problematic IMO because it introduces the bias of the fact-checker (human or human-created algorithm) as a middle-entity which presents information in a simplified black-and-white manner (true or false). Not only does this discourage research, it also turns 'fact-checkers' into gatekeepers of information ('allowed' vs 'not allowed'). This is undoubtedly happening in the world-at-large. I'm concerned about this being replicated on Hive.

I did suggest in my post that 'allowed' on Hive - as I was using the word - meant 'allowed to be visible' by, for example, not downvoting. I suggested there is a desire to make certain content lower in visibility, a conscious and stated intention by an unknown number of folk with hefty wallets. The type of content I am referring to is the stuff generally labelled 'conspiracy': for example information that claims to demonstrate the harmful nature of the current global 'vaccination' programme. It is the type of content that your interlocutor (quoted as replying to you) says can cause 'significant harm'. I'd wondered about whether you agreed as I considered that that might be a bias that enters the system you are designing. You did clear that up somewhat by indicating what you did about how the rating system will work, and I leave it there - your opinion being no biz of mine beyond the mentioned concern :).

There's obviously much more to say but I doubt much point in doing so, especially since the post and the ideas haven't had much traction :(.

I thank you again for taking the time to respond.