Hi, your article is quite long, so I'm only going to address a few points that I saw were directly related to the software I'm planning to create, since you've directly asked about it.

Is it true that information can be dangerous!?

Yes. Most obviously, false information can be dangerous. If your pharmacist mislabels your pills and it says "take 4 per day", when you are only supposed to take one per day, this could cause you to end up in the hospital (or worse). I could go on here with many more examples of how false information can be dangerous, but I hope this makes the point clear. Honestly, I feel anyone should already know the answer to this question without it being asked.

Partial information can also be dangerous, even when the information you have is true. If you are told it is safe to be under water for several hours, but you are not informed that this is true when you carry an oxygen tank with you, then you could also find yourself in a precarious situation.

And finally, even complete information can be dangerous at times (not so much for the recipient, as for others). Christians have been killed in some places when it was discovered that they had abandoned the prevailing religion in the region in favor of Christianity, for example. Even recent news articles have discussed where spying software has been used to obtain information that later led to people being imprisoned and/or killed.

Is it true that folk benefit from fact-checked info?
...or is this simply convenience often at the expense of precision, even truth?

Sorry, I find your point here difficult to understand/vague. First, it really depends on what you think fact-checking means. But in general, double checking information from a source is not "convenience at the expense of precision, even truth". A perfect example of how fact checking can be useful is to double check the dosage on your medicine with a doctor if you think there's a chance your pharmacist got it wrong. This fact checking could save your life.

Is it possible that the design of a system to rate information on Hive could be designed with some of the biases towards 'unwanted' information of the type referred to in this post?
Is this likely? Is this to be desired? Am I being paranoid?

You're being paranoid. If you read my posts more closely, you would find I've explained many times that the information rating results will vary depending on which sources you yourself rate as trustworthy. For example, in an extreme scenario to demonstrate the point, you could rate only your own opinions as trustworthy and the rating system would rate all other information as untrustworthy.

A natural consequence of this is that different people will get different answers about the truth of the same information. The allowance for diversity of opinion is baked into the system.

Two final points, one about Hive and one about the information rating system:

• I believe your original thesis about what is allowed on Hive is confused at best. You can post whatever you like on Hive. Votes can raise/lower attention to your posts, but that's all they do. In fact, downvotes have often resulted in more attention being given to a post, just because some authors yell and scream when they get downvoted. At the end of the day, voting affects rewards, not what is allowed.
• I want to clarify the nature of the information rating software as it sounds like you think it will be a core component of Hive. It will not. It will just be a 2nd layer app that will benefit from Hive-based services.