How to cure information pollution - Knowledge is Power
"When private power takes over government, that's fascism.": great truism. Fascism is enabled by, and built on, lies and manipulation of media. Here's one solution. Let's do it.
"When private power takes over government, that's fascism.": great truism. Fascism is enabled by, and built on, lies and manipulation of media. Here's one solution. Let's do it.
In small primitive egalitarian societies, there was no secrecy or "privacy" - everyone saw and heard everything.
In anything bigger than a few houses, professional media is necessary to investigate the facts, fact check, look at alternatives, and inform everyone so they can exercise democratic control.
It's a full time job for hundreds once you get to a country the size of even a few million.
And it simply doesn't work if there is false information around because people don't have time or resources to do it themselves. That's where the changes need to be made.
While a few want to manipulate and control people, or collude for nasty purposes, the vast majority of us want reliable information, opinion based on real facts, and a place to express our own opinions and share information without being shadow banned.
1. OUTLAW PUBLICATION OF DISINFORMATION AND HATE, AND SUPPRESSION OF INFORMATION
There is no point talking to psychopathic corporates, who make money off criminals and trolls. They need to be regulated.
Why don't we require all media do the fact checking like they used to have to, and outlaw publication of disinformation and hate, and suppression of information.
The only way to effectively put an end to the problem is to
recognise that lies (assertions or insinuations of "facts" which are not true), and hiding or omitting the truth, are not "information" or "opinion" and so are not within the protected freedom of expression - and
criminalise public dissemination of lies. Jokes, sarcasm etc are OK, from the statement themselves they are not claiming to be truth.
Unqualified assertions or insinuations as fact which the maker does not believe on reasonable grounds to be fully true/the whole truth, are lies.
Far better to impose the duty on the few makers of statements, not the mass victims. Just like real life.
- Automatic Infringement fines like parking tickets for upvoting, sharing or spreading existing disinformation
(strict liability in the English law sense - -no intention required, the only defence is "it wasn't me", or "it is true". (Will make real people think before spreading.)
If you like, in the US, you can have a positive defence that the lie
did not cause any benefit to anyone involved in the publication (creator/publisher/spreader) and
did not cause damage to any other person, and
was not intended to do either.
If the offender goes to court and produces evidence that there was no benefit and no harm, and no intention to obtain a benefit or cause harm, the state must prove intention, benefit or harm, on the balance of probabilities.
-Serious fines and option of imprisonment for uploading misinformation.
- Social and all other public media automatic fines per view, plus imprisonment for creating disinformation, algorithms promoting disinformation or hate, and for failing to remove hate and disinformation, suppressing true information (includes removing true posts, or pure opinion expressed as such).
- - - -
It's not difficult. It's not dangerous. That is propaganda spread by those wanting to profit from spreading disinformation..
- - - -
America needs to stop protecting fraud and bring it’s laws into line with the rest of the democratic world.
It’s already covered by most countries’ existing fraud laws, which we are powerless to enforce in our own countries because US protects the global corporates.
Fraud is deception with intent to cause harm or gain a benefit. . That law needs to be enforced.
- Clicks, votes and advertising revenue are benefits.
- Confusion, mental distress, wasted time, exposure to advertising we don't want, discord, hate, and the threats and physical harm that can result, are losses.
- - - -
- Let's just get it underway and perfect it as we go.
- Within a month, I believe, 99% of disinformation will have disappeared, true information will be available,
-- there will be no longer any reason for secret algorithms to push lies or hide information,
-- and the parties in one court case will be doing the work of a single fact check in disputed cases, for all. Efficiency!
- - - -
- Protection of everyone is what we have the LAW for.
The law enables us to trust people we meet, that they will not pull out a knife and murder us, because the law has dissuaded most from trying, and imprisoned most of those it has not dissuaded.
We need that same trust in our communication.
If we are unable to have that trust (and it's corollaries, safety and freedom), the law has failed us.
- - - -
Telling people to get information literacy to protect ourselves is like telling everyone to get a black belt in Karate to defend ourselves against robbers, only a million times more complicated.
We understand MSNBC, like all media, gets more clicks, more viewing time, and more advertising, the more lies are around. So of course you wouldn't propose the obvious solution of banning them.
2. Impose media standards - like most free democracies do
WHAT "EXPERTS"? "think" requiring accuracy and banning bias (in news REPORTING, not in OPINION) is "dangerous"???
Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Code of Ethics1: for example,:
- no abusive or unduly discriminatory material or comment which is based on matters of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability
- news shall be represented with accuracy and without bias
- News shall not be selected for the purpose of furthering or hindering either side of any controversial public issue, nor shall it be formulated on the basis of the beliefs, opinions or desires
- contests and promotions shall be conceived and conducted fairly and legitimately and particular care shall be taken to ensure that they are not misleading, potentially dangerous or likely to give rise to a public inconvenience or disturbance and that any prizes offered or promises made are what they are represented to be
- etc.
3. Set up State-owned competition.
My government set up a bank to keep overseas banks honest. It pays for public roads.2 This is a possible alternative to policing private sites, I don’t know.
Elon Musk wants to charge all Twitter users $1 per year per account.
I would prefer to pay my own government or a publicly controlled organisation eg run by the Unitd Nations, $5, or even $20 per account per year for an internet services platform similar to twitter, search engine, facebook and YouTube, with open source code, public and user customisable algorithms, and transparent public prosecution of disinformation, trolling and other manipulations, with rights of appeal and/or an ombudsman. Multiply that by 5 million, and you have $300 million income, before advertising from my country alone, let alone outsiders joining.
4. ELECTION INFORMATION AVAILABILITY:
The Government creates 1 web page, which is a giant spreadsheet.
- Rows are issues, eg "education" and sub-issues eg "LGBTQ education" or "constitutional education" indented underneath them.
-- Candidates or the public may add rows for specific issues.
- Columns are election candidates.
- ALL parties, and each candidate, are REQUIRED to state their voting policy on EVERY issue, and tick a box if the policy is non-changeable.
- History of edits to those policies are viewable by right-click.
- After each election, the page becomes locked and a new page is created for the next election.
Further resource: a history of media corruption in the US
Further resource: the invention of the right to lie by the Supreme Court of the US, 2012
[ALVAREZ 2012] U.S. Supreme Court Finds a Constitutional Right to Lie | MacDonald Illig#__#<<decision, by a divided Court, is contrary to a long line of prior Supreme Court cases recognizing that the First Amendment simply does not protect lies - knowingly false statements of fact that serve no legitimate interest.#green>> <<attempted to distinguish other situations, such as fraud or defamation (libel/slander) cases, where the false statement has a causal link to some identified harm.#red>> <<But it is clear that lies regarding receipt of the Medal of Honor do in fact inflict tangible and substantial harm.#green>> <<in order to obtain financial or other material awards.#green>> <<"If the law supposes that … [then] the law is an ass - an idiot.">>
Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Code of Ethics (2002) · CBSC _ CCNR.pdf
@2023-10-05 06.01
no abusive or unduly discriminatory material
sound social concepts
reflect the moral and ethical standards of contemporary Canadian society
encourage pro-social behaviour and attitudes
news shall be represented with accuracy and without bias
ensure that news broadcasts are not editorial
not be selected for the purpose of furthering or hindering either side of any controversial public issue
nor shall it be formulated on the basis of the beliefs, opinions or desires of management, the editor or others
fundamental purpose of news dissemination in a democracy is to enable people to know what is happening, and to understand events so that they may form their own conclusions
analysis or comment is clearly labeled …kept distinct from regular news presentations
opinion, … shall be clearly labeled as such and kept entirely distinct from regular broadcasts of news or analysis
full, fair and proper presentation of news
treat fairly all subjects of a controversial nature
balanced program schedules
contests and promotions shall be conceived and conducted fairly and legitimately and particular care shall be taken to ensure that they are not misleading, potentially dangerous or likely to give rise to a public inconvenience or disturbance and that any prizes offered or promises made are what they are represented to be
advertising story so that these shall be simple, truthful and believable
protects the public from false and exaggerated claims for drugs, proprietary medicines and foods
no influence by advertisers, or the perception of such influence, on the reporting of news or public affairs, which must be accurate, balanced, and objective, with fairness and integrity being the paramount considerations governing its reporting
avoid broadcasting any advertising material or program that makes use of any subliminal technique or device
factual material for public enlightenment should be included by broadcasters, advertisers and their agencies.>>
BROADCASTING STANDARDS NZ BSA-Code-of-Broadcasting-Standards-Screen_FINAL-v2.pdf
The Act enables people to complain to a broadcaster if they think standards have been breached. People who are dissatisfied with the broadcaster’s response can refer their complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA)for independent determination 5
The Broadcasting Act 1989 (the Act) creates a system of broadcasting standards. This Code provides guidance to all broadcasters (including those on radio, free-to-air television and pay television) and their audiences 5
restricting freedom of expression. The New Zealand Bill of Rights states this should only occur when it is ’demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society’ 5
guidelines and commentary are just that – they are not firm rules and do not carry the same weight as the standards 5
STANDARD 1 – OFFENSIVE ANDDISTURBING CONTENTBroadcast content should not seriously violate community standards of taste and decency or disproportionately offend or disturb the audience, taking into account:• the context of the programme and the wider context of the broadcast, and • the information given by the broadcaster to enable the audience to exercise choice and control over their own, and children’s,viewing or listening 7
STANDARD 2 –CHILDREN’S INTERESTSBroadcasters should ensure children4 can be protected from content that might adversely affect them 11
STANDARD 3 – PROMOTION OFILLEGAL OR ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOURBroadcast content should not be likely to promote illegal or serious antisocial behaviour taking into account the context and the audience’s ability to exercise choice and control 12
STANDARD 4 – DISCRIMINATION ANDDENIGRATIONBroadcast content should not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of,any section of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability,occupational status or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief 14
PART 2 BALANCED ANDACCURATE REPORTINGIN NEWS, CURRENTAFFAIRS ANDFACTUAL CONTENT 15
STANDARD 5 – BALANCEWhen controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant viewpoints either in the same broadcast or in other broadcasts within the period of current interest unless the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage 15
STANDARD 6 – ACCURACYBroadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs and factual content:• is accurate in relation to all material points of fact • does not materially mislead the audience (give a wrong idea or impression of the facts) 17
does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion, rather than statements of fact. 17
analysis,comment or opinion is not materially misleading with respect to any facts: 17
to protect the public from being significantly misinformed 17
PART 3RIGHTS TO PRIVACYAND FAIR TREATMENT 18
STANDARD 7 – PRIVACYBroadcasters should maintain standards consistent with the privacy of the individual 20
STANDARD 8 – FAIRNESSBroadcasters should deal fairly with any individual or organisation taking part or referred to in a broadcast 21
See my substack
