Replacing “blatantly fake news” to “without a doubt false” doesn’t solve the problem at all. It still relies on your view of things. Why you in particular should be the arbiter of Truth?
Even some of the topics you listed are worthy of discussion in my opinion and should not be outright banned by instance admins on such ambiguous terms that could be stretched to infinity. Most of them not even proven to be false but rather gathered large amount of evidence against them. Who’s to say that new evidence won’t change it tomorrow? Or that evidence we already have are not intentionally misleading to benefit someone? Or just statistical error?
Previously common knowledge was that homosexuals are pedophiles, there were actual scientific evidence supporting that. Imagine labeling any counterargument to that as “without a doubt false”?
I understand the desire to shield people from trolls and misinformation and I want that too, but ambiguous rules that rely on personal world view is a terrible way to go about it.
Seems mostly reasonable. Not sure about ban for “fake news” tho. It could be abused to silence critical voices. In the end it might produce echo chambers.
Maybe it’s a good idea to add “repeated ban evasion” to the list. It could be checked through IP or fingerprinting. Doing it without sacrificing privacy would be difficult however.
Account age might also indicate that something fishy is going on.
As a solution, could such people just be downvoted to hell? Self moderation is a nice benefit of reddit-like voting. Their effectiveness would plummet if nobody is seeing them, so they would eventually stop, right? To prevent spam they additionally could be rate-limited if they get downvotes only.
Also, what about user reports? Maybe they should be also taken in consideration (their relative quantity and validity).
Restricting new accounts might also help (until certain amount of karma has been reached, for example) against bots.