4 ms·

I wonder if we will ever have fact checking regulation that every media outlet needs to conform to.

by ParanoidShroom 5y ago

didgeoridoo 5y ago
Definitely. We could call it the “Ministry of Truth”!
- Zigurd 5y ago
fennecfoxen 5y ago
Would it be fair to describe such a regulation as a law that abridges, in any way, the freedom of the press? If so you will need a massive and bipartisan political effort for it to be so, at least in any US jurisdiction.
sdoering 5y ago
A German comedian once stated that an esoteric could claim more BS in 5 minutes than a scientist could disprove in one lifetime. I know there is a YouTube series from renowned lecturers that discuss the same concept, but sadly can't find it right now. The problem is that any instrument being introduced could be abused for censorship as well. As much as I would like to have some things in place to counter the amount of BS in social media or on YouTube I fear it would backfire. I think much would be gained if the platforms dismantled their algorithms optimized for engagement that lead people down a rabbit hole of more extreme content. Because in the end statistically this leads to more ad revenue from more clicks.
- srean 5y ago
  Yes, I call it a denial of service attack. Not sure what the solution is.
- sdoering 5y ago
  Addendum: I found the lecture on YouTube [1]. The lecturers made a book from the lecture [2]. [1]: https://youtu.be/A2OtU5vlR0k https://youtu.be/A2OtU5vlR0k [2]: https://www.callingbullshit.org/ https://www.callingbullshit.org/
- austincheney 5y ago
  Not exactly what you are looking for but MIT has a partially animated series on YouTube about econometrics that is excellent.
pmarreck 5y ago
China already has this :/
lysium 5y ago
I don’t think this will help. Everything will be posted as an opinion or with lots of question marks. Also, what is a fact? Who determines it? And: we need unpopular opinions for innovations.
matwood 5y ago
It wouldn't work. How and which facts are presented can shape whatever narrative the presenter wants. In topics like science, the 'when' also matters because what we consider facts can change over time as more studies are done.
Mezzie 5y ago
Nope. It's not possible logistically or politically. Assuming we're talking about the USA, any such body would likely end up as a federal agency, which means it would turn into a political football whenever administrations change over. Each administration would have its own personal approach to the fact-checking, which means that even if you trust politicians (lololol), the fact-checks wouldn't be consistent. The only way to avoid this would be for Congress to be really specific in drafting the legislation, but Congress has incentive not to touch the topic.
ParanoidShroom 5y ago
Can't edit anymore, should have elaborated more: I'm not suggesting we need this for many reasons, I'm wondering how this will evolve. FB, Insta,TikTok, newspapers etc have these issues, many opportunists hiding behind the fact that scale fact checking is HARD. I'm just cynical and fear governments jump in with the a hammer called regulation. Will there ever be enough ponzi schemes were the governments will say "enough"?

I wonder if we will ever have fact checking regulation that every media outlet needs to conform to.

didgeoridoo 5y ago

Definitely. We could call it the “Ministry of Truth”!

Zigurd 5y ago

fennecfoxen 5y ago

Would it be fair to describe such a regulation as a law that abridges, in any way, the freedom of the press? If so you will need a massive and bipartisan political effort for it to be so, at least in any US jurisdiction.

sdoering 5y ago

A German comedian once stated that an esoteric could claim more BS in 5 minutes than a scientist could disprove in one lifetime. I know there is a YouTube series from renowned lecturers that discuss the same concept, but sadly can't find it right now. The problem is that any instrument being introduced could be abused for censorship as well. As much as I would like to have some things in place to counter the amount of BS in social media or on YouTube I fear it would backfire. I think much would be gained if the platforms dismantled their algorithms optimized for engagement that lead people down a rabbit hole of more extreme content. Because in the end statistically this leads to more ad revenue from more clicks.

srean 5y ago
Yes, I call it a denial of service attack. Not sure what the solution is.
sdoering 5y ago
Addendum: I found the lecture on YouTube [1]. The lecturers made a book from the lecture [2]. [1]: https://youtu.be/A2OtU5vlR0k https://youtu.be/A2OtU5vlR0k [2]: https://www.callingbullshit.org/ https://www.callingbullshit.org/
austincheney 5y ago
Not exactly what you are looking for but MIT has a partially animated series on YouTube about econometrics that is excellent.

pmarreck 5y ago

China already has this :/

lysium 5y ago

I don’t think this will help. Everything will be posted as an opinion or with lots of question marks. Also, what is a fact? Who determines it? And: we need unpopular opinions for innovations.

matwood 5y ago

It wouldn't work. How and which facts are presented can shape whatever narrative the presenter wants. In topics like science, the 'when' also matters because what we consider facts can change over time as more studies are done.

Mezzie 5y ago

Nope. It's not possible logistically or politically. Assuming we're talking about the USA, any such body would likely end up as a federal agency, which means it would turn into a political football whenever administrations change over. Each administration would have its own personal approach to the fact-checking, which means that even if you trust politicians (lololol), the fact-checks wouldn't be consistent. The only way to avoid this would be for Congress to be really specific in drafting the legislation, but Congress has incentive not to touch the topic.

ParanoidShroom 5y ago

Can't edit anymore, should have elaborated more: I'm not suggesting we need this for many reasons, I'm wondering how this will evolve. FB, Insta,TikTok, newspapers etc have these issues, many opportunists hiding behind the fact that scale fact checking is HARD. I'm just cynical and fear governments jump in with the a hammer called regulation. Will there ever be enough ponzi schemes were the governments will say "enough"?