We Must Crush Digital Misinformation Before It Destroys Society

We Must Crush Digital Misinformation Before It Destroys Society

Digital communication is connecting people around the globe with tremendous benefits but is also being misused in terrible ways that take advantage of the community. As a society, we are bombarded by misinformation under the guise that it is fact, leading to terrible fractures, victimization, and grief to the detriment of individuals and society as a whole. 

The truth is obscured online and in the media. Something must be done to curb this growing trend and restore the mechanisms that provide factual reporting of news.

Fact from Fiction

It is not the people’s fault. When sources, that are believed to be truthful, are presenting inaccurate or misleading information, there is no grounding for what is real. People are easily swayed. To exacerbate the problem they then form social groups where misinformation is then further propagated. Manipulating what people believe to be true has fueled hate, racism, sexism, and violence.

We see countries where freedom-of-speech does not exist, ruled by dictators or controlling governments, that use these tactics to control and dominate their citizens. It is most apparent in countries where the government controls ALL the media and news stories. The only information available is that which supports the regime. In some cases, an entire nation can be made to believe outlandish claims, such as a ruler is godlike, has supernatural powers, or is loved unilaterally by everyone. The pen can be mightier than the sword -- the digital equivalent even more so.

Here in the United States, fake stories and narratives deter people from believing science, inoculating children, and it all came to a head during the last presidential election. It undermined the confidence in our election process to the brink of insurrection. It turned neighbors against each other and threatened our democracy.

Simply put, the digital world is a blender where it is impossible to identify the difference between factual news and all other narratives. The media industry has not solved the problem, but rather they have often moved to capitalize on sensationalism, leaving reputable news providers at a disadvantage.

It is time we do something formal to stop the manipulation of our citizens and our democracy by strengthening the pillars of truth.

As much as I dislike regulations, I recognize that when the normal incentives of a system fail to self-correct situations that harm the people, it is time for regulations to define the guard rails for what is allowable.

Freedom requires free-speech, but liberty requires truth. We need a framework that provides both! 

No easy solution exists, but I have a crazy yet plausible idea to undercut the growing problem of digital misinformation. 

It is a simple solution to understand but potentially challenging to implement.

A Simple Proposal

A straightforward regulation must be enacted. 

First, any online or digital site that uses the word ‘News’ in its title, content, or self-references must only publish facts. No satire, opinions, editorials, user-comments, nothing. For that, they need to push the content to another site that does NOT purport it to be factual ‘news’.

News sites will then be fully accountable for what they publish. They must do fact-checking and will be held accountable under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Punishments will include fines, regulatory business enforcement (e.g. shut-down), and criminal charges if related to fraud or political manipulation. They will also be civilly liable including possible punitive damages when harm is done to innocent citizens or businesses. 

This will drive significant changes in the News industry, separating those who are trying to ethically report facts from those who are willing to sensationalize stories for more viewers, supporters, and advertising revenue. It now separates the two so each market can compete with like vendors, thereby evening the playing fields.

Secondly, all other sites, not under any kind of banner of ‘News’ are free to post whatever they desire. It would be the place for entertainment, satire, far-right/left or middle political narratives, fake stories, fiction, opinions, comments, and editorials. The benefit is such content would not be subject to Section 230 and perfect for most social media platforms. The caveat is they would be forbidden to label, infer, or market such content or sites as providing ‘news’.

No Perfect Solution

The key is to delineate between factual and non-factual information in a way that is easy and consistent to be recognized by citizens. 

Neither side, legitimate news outlets nor entertainment venues, will like this idea -- which makes it such a good compromise. 

The group who will ABSOLUTLEY oppose this idea the most will be the people and organizations who purposefully try to deceive the public for their gain. It holds them accountable financially and criminally.

Freedom requires free-speech, but liberty requires truth. 

We need a viable framework that provides both to empower citizens without sacrificing rights! 

Every citizen has the right to exercise free speech and we all should step forward to protect our liberty.  

Let’s clean up our act. We are in a hole and it is time to work our way out. It won’t be easy, but if we do nothing, it will be more difficult tomorrow and every day thereafter.

  

If you like this idea, share it, talk about it. Send it to your representative. Leave a comment.

If you hate it, explain why.  

Anders Holstborg

Growth Engineer at Qonto

3 年

You want an institution that defines Truth. That is exceptionally terrifying. We must crush growing authoritarianism before it becomes society. Again. This is 10000x more dangerous than any Youtube video a bunch of people can complain about is 'destroying society by misleading the dumb public'

回复
Tim Casey

Information Security Risk Manager

3 年

The ability of each individual to choose their own truth is a fundamental human right.?Each of us interprets our environment and the activities in it based on our own unique viewpoint.?It is what creates the wonderful variety of human life.?Yes there are a relatively small handful of confirmable facts, such as the mass of an object or the infection mechanism of a virus.?But the nearly infinite field of knowledge based on those facts is for each of us to decide.?Courts have struggled for millennia on how to differentiate truth from fiction in libel cases, or what constitutes a religion, and we are still without clear definitions.?? I am not dogmatically opposed to regulation but I believe your proposal would not only not work, courts would immediately become so overwhelmed with challenges under it they may never recover.?I believe instead we need to address the underlying reasons disinformation is so prevalent and effective: truly abysmal and politically-run education systems, the virtual war between urban & rural populations, the lack of strength and leadership in our largest public and private institutions to address the most egregious issues such as Q-Anon, and (here’s my moonshot idea) a new independent branch of government dedicated to audit and confirmation of at least the baseline facts, such as the extent of a pandemic or the true cost of a government purchase.?All of this will take a very long time to implement—long-term solutions always do—but we need to get started soon or it’s possible society may reach the point where too many truths make it impossible to function.

Khushil Dep

I help organisations succeed with technology. Hands-on ML / AI / DEVOPS / CLOUD / CYBER.

3 年

Crush misinformation? You might want to check your messaging. Why should we trust you to do this?

回复
Jean Barnard

Sales Trainer & Mentor at The Sales Institute South Africa with 3 short courses available on Coursera

3 年

While I agree with your problem statement, I vehemently disagree with your proposal. In the final analysis it is my opinion that government ALWAYS creates more problems than it solves - with the possible exception of local government. I would posit that most humans - buy a significant margin - are centrists who all want pretty much the same things. What is missing here is a plan to mobilise the centrists so that the extremes (both left and right) get less airtime. "Be the change you want to see" and "follow the money" are 2 aphorisms that will assist you in this effort

回复

要查看或添加评论,请登录

社区洞察