The problems with any law or system against 'fake news' can basically be summed up as follows: 1. As said, how do you prove intent? Everyone is wrong about som

The problems with any law or system against 'fake news' can basically be summed up as follows: 1. As said, how do you prove intent? Everyone is wrong about something, and some people are literally insane. Any attempt to prove it beyond the most obvious cases (aka admissions of lying/trolling) would be exceedingly difficult, likely catch out many otherwise legitimate media outlets and end up basically punishing people for making mistakes/being dumb/being insane. 2. Who determines what's fake and how do they do it? Any censoring system is ripe for abuse, and will be co-opted by political fanatics to 'punish' the other side at the earliest opportunity. Don't think many people would trust the Trump administration to make this sort of judgement. Nor would anyone sane trust any sort of government institution. 3. Even if you do somehow get a neutral third party, you get into the question of what counts as 'fake news'. Satire is obviously fine, but pretty much every site classed as 'fake news' now claims to be writing satire. So you then get stuck trying to decide what can 'legitimately' be called satire and how that should be identified. Do you need a giant label on every satirical article now? You also get stuck in heavily contentious areas where the 'truth' isn't exactly some obvious thing that all sides have agreed on. There's a pretty big spectrum between saying something that's objectively false (like, the Earth is flat) and something extremely contentious (X religion/belief is right, here's a explanation of the causes behind the Arab Israeli conflict, etc). Some stuff is so heavily debated that people could give you a dozen studies, anecodes and case studies for any argument you want. Either way, it just seems like a bad idea that has the potential to cause more problems that it solves.