4 ms·
In my view, we need to go farther than just fixing Facebook in this regard, although that would be a great start. We have “truth in labeling laws” and I think w
by zw123456 10y ago
In my view, we need to go farther than just fixing Facebook in this regard, although that would be a great start. We have “truth in labeling laws” and I think we should also have “labeling of truth laws”. What I mean by this is that we restrict the free speech rights of those selling food and drugs and require that claims of ingredients and claims must be truthful. This is of course because it goes to the health of the public.
I assert that we need something similar when it comes to "NEWS", anything labeled news should have certain standards of accuracy such that the public consuming something labeled news can be confident that what they are consuming is reasonably factual much in the same way that someone consuming food and drugs feel reasonably confident they are consuming what is on the label. This goes to the health of our democracy and hence indirectly to the wellness of the public.
I know this sounds pretty controversial and has 1st amendment implications but it is not without precedence. Prior to the 1996 telecom deregulation act, there were restrictions placed on the public TV networks under something called the “Fairness Doctrine”. That was done under the 1934 telecom act which (http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/piac/novmtg/pubint.htm http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/piac/novmtg/pubint.htm), in return for free use of the airwaves in exchange for "public services" such as news programming.
With deregulation came the selling of spectrum through auction, which in my view, I don't think it was a good bargain for the public. But I also think that falsely calling something news could also fall under the regulations by the FTC.
I think it is important for the functioning of a democracy that the public have access to a source of information that they can feel confident is fact based.
All of this is obviously academic as it seems pretty unlikely the Trump administration would consider anything like that.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago> anything labeled news should have certain standards of accuracy such that the public consuming something labeled news can be confident that what they are consuming is reasonably factual Who determines what is factual? How do you police the global Internet? Consider the Snowden disclosures. The government held its line on their non-factuality for surprisingly long, including by lying to Congress [1]. Also, The Guardian, who led the charge on vetting and publishing Snowden's claims, is a British newspaper. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-director-john-brennan-lied-senate https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-di...
- zw123456 10y agoGood point. But I know a lot of people who feel very exasperated and frustrated in not knowing who to trust. I think for democracy to work, we have to figure out a way to provide people with some level of confidence in some sort of information source they can trust. If not, I sincerely worry about the future of democracy.
- JumpCrisscross 10y agoWe used to have nonsense toolbars "scanning" Google links, et cetera for viruses. Perhaps a similar, but federated, trust system? I could choose to have sources flagged as trustworthy or untrustworthy by the ACLU and the EFF thusly indicated in my browser. (Similar to AdBlocker Plus lists.) It would be simply for a campaign to publish its own trust ratings, however.
- zw123456 10y agoSomething like that would be great, something like a virus checker but a fact checker button, so it is quick and easy for people to know if what they are reading is true or not. A lso, it would be great if TV network News shows had to display their "accuracy" rating at the beginning and end of their shows.
- amelius 10y agoIt's a good idea, but I'm afraid that Facebook would just label all posts as satire and be done with it.
- astrodust 10y agoFacebook is basically "satire" at this point, and by that I mean "full of bullshit". Smoking is probably better for your health than Facebook is.
- amelius 10y agoI personally view Facebook as an advertisement platform equally for both corporations and individuals. Corporations selling their stuff as usual, and individuals selling themselves. So what I do is unfollow all my friends by default, and I use FB only to discover interesting events, and for basic messaging with friends.
- astrodust 10y agoI gave up and firewalled "facebook.com" years ago.