I assume you are referring to something like defamation but controlled by the state
I assume you are referring to something like defamation but controlled by the state
Maybe do issue follow ups, so if someone says something and later it is contested prioritise the contestants until they get similar reach. For example, if a politician says he never met with someone and a photo of them together is revealed make sure that their claim is displayed together with the new photo.
Things like this.
That's what fact-checking is. It's widely heckled.
I guess NASA tweets might receive pairs who claim that the Earth is not a globe :) That's OK, NASA can respond to these with equal visibility and if people are not convinced I guess NASA would need more convincing arguments.
Btw I'm not advocating for active suppression of ideas. I just understand if a particular company chooses to do it on their website. I'd do the same in their place. It's not their job to give everyone a voice.
It's split down the middle
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/27/republicans...
As to prominent people- What do you consider prominent, would most people agree with that, and do you have a poll of these people.
Saying most prominent people blah blah blah is debatable on two levels
I have no idea what you're arguing. Your own link says what I said.
I'm not saying anything about the fact-checking itself. I'm not on Twitter or Facebook. I haven't seen any fact-check posts. I'm sure they try their best to be accurate. I prefer to get my information about the most hoax-prone topics from authoritative sources - primary sources, news agencies, newspapers of record - the more boring, the better.
However, some sort of "fair & balanced" law would have to enforce this.
Edit: and to respond to sibling comment about fact-checking being heckled...
The mechanism here would have to somehow force a similar amount of views. For example, if a lie gets 1MM views, then the proof of the lie should have to gain 1MM views before the original author can gain leverage of the algorithm again.
Of course the new system will eventually be abused, however, it's a step in the right direction. And when that eventually fails to be recognizable, another set of checks and balances must be layered on top.