Not attempting to the arbiter of truth and falsehood would be one.
Or reporting on what users think of a story's truthfulness: "49% rate this story as true, 21% rate it as untrue".
Or, if they want to be honest, acknowledging that it is about policing taboo thoughts. "Smith, 4980203 Winston. This article is crimethink! Warning: If you read too many articles like it your Citizen Credit Score will be downgraded. You have been warned!". OK, maybe they won't go for that :-)
Think of something like Pizzagate - the fact that the restaurant in question didn't have a basement belied the assertions that bad things were happening in said basement. Any article or comment that passed on that provable lie should be flagged as a lie.
Sure, there are grey areas beyond that. Those are opinions, and should be separable from facts.
Truth and falsehood are absolute for pretty much all fact claims.
Whether they can easily by determined is another story.
> Think of something like Pizzagate - the fact that the restaurant in question didn't have a basement belied the assertions that bad things were happening in said basement.
Sure, but suppose (they weren't, by for sake of illustrating the problem) bad things were happening in, say, a attached a controlled by the owners of the restaurant, but somehiw as the story got out and before it was fixed in text, it was distorted so that it referred to a non-existent basement instead. Would actively suppressing the story because of the impossible location described really be in the public interest?
Sure, in strict terms any single factual error in the most involved story makes the story false. But, most accounts will accumulate some false elements in a complex story: there has to be consideration of importance and materiality.
Sure, but for most contentious political issues, this is not the case.
While this is literally true, it's not clear to me that it's a relevant metaphor for online communities.