|
|
|
|
|
|
by em-bee
1035 days ago
|
|
|
the problem is, who gets to decide what is disinformation? yes, there is a lot of fake news out there, and i'd rather see it go away, but i fear that the barrier to decide if something is disinformation is to low. if someone claims that something is disinformation, it is not enough to show that it contradicts some other information, but once such a conflict exist we have to go the next step and show actual evidence that one is right and the other is wrong. and the source spreading the disinformation has to be given the chance to present their evidence as well. if they can't then they may be denounced accordingly, but their spread should then only be limited, and not outright blocked so that there is still a chance to critically evaluate it. |
|
|
* there must not be a single entity that is the arbiter of truth, but we need multiple independent institutions that evaluate sensitive topics and give their recommendations.
content providers may then follow any one of these institutions at their choice. (most practical would be to have regional institutions to give diversity, but content providers may follow any of them. if the french one says something is ok, and the german one says it's not, then the content may still be unrestricted even in germany)
* content must not be completely blocked but should come with a warning or be hidden. like on hackernews.
i can, if i want to, access all the dead content. it's just an extra step, and the majority won't bother with it, but the ones curious can check, and if there is something wrongly hidden they can share that.