| Not sure how this would work, but I think it would be worth researching/testing: * Essentially have regional or clustered versions of events/history For example, Afghanistan will have a different perspective on the US invasion than the US, but I think there’s value in seeing what the other thinks. (Does *not* necessarily imply one is more correct than the other) Then have some sort of ranking system where (not sure how this would happen) votes can be had on which perspective is more correct. This hopefully would weed out the intense/false perspectives, but still gives people the ability to see the different ones. A core problem we have is what constitutes misinformation/disinformation/propaganda/truth I think the incorrect approach we’ve tried to take is either having a vetting committee/website that evaluates what is true, or just outright censorship. This fuels the actual conspiracy theories because they can use this as grounds for their cause (since, at times these vetting bodies are verifiably wrong) We cannot withhold information, it travels too quickly and is easy to circumvent without total authoritarian control. And all it takes is a few “valid” cases for the authoritarian seeds to be sown in the soil of good intentions |
But we can generate unending oceans of bullshit. If you can't stop the truth, then make up unnumbered truths that wear down the most avid learners. Democracies vote in tyrants all the time, votes are easily bought in any number of ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law