I disagree for the reasons listed by others about it being impossible to enforce in a just way, and too easy to be corruptible. I think it would be better to in

I disagree for the reasons listed by others about it being impossible to enforce in a just way, and too easy to be corruptible. I think it would be better to instead change the incentives. The current incentive of a publisher like NYT or Fox News is to make money. How do you make money on the internet? By driving up page views to increase ad clickthrough. And how do you drive up page views? By spreading misinformation, or at the very least, inflammatory articles which get people excitable. Simply by reading a news article, we think that its goal is to inform us even if we approach it with caution. Indeed, we could say that writing thoughtful, well-informed articles is exactly what you don’t want to do if you want to increase page views. Could this change with different incentives? I think so! I think an only-paid news source would probably do a better job at informing, since misinformation would hopefully cause someone to cancel their subscription. I’d love to think of other incentives that are in line with the goal of informing the public rather than increasing pageviews.