We Must Crush Digital Misinformation Before It Destroys Society

in STEMGeeks6 months ago

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.

Posted with STEMGeeks


Just thinking about how product placement used to only be about, products. A box of Cheerios in the background. That led to earning a bit of money on the side. 'News' couldn't do that though, until they converted politics into a product of sorts. So there's a lot of money involved now. These 'News' outlets, mainstream and/or independent; they won't want to let go of that bottle until its finished. And when the people signing the laws are also signing the deals to get their message heard... man. That's a tough one.

Someone or some group needs to step up and begin reporting, without the nonsense and a no BS attitude, while making money doing it. That's tough because all 'news' today depends on established echo chambers/markets. It's all about telling people more of what they want to hear, based on previous tracked behavioral/consumption patterns. Most consumers don't even realize they're bordering on being in some kind of a cult when they're busy lapping this stuff up and passing it around; gathering new potential members.

Brainwash sells.

If someone can actually manage to make money with legitimate reporting, where consumers might be confronted with things they don't want to hear, then others will follow suit. Basically taking what happened with 'news' and going back the other way. I've seen groups pretend to do it. Their marketing goes straight to pointing at the other news outlets and turning them into a villain. Boogieman is established, division/market created. Then they go from there. Eliminate all that nonsense and get down to brass tacks. The money is what's in the way.

 6 months ago 

By separating the markets, based upon the truth of their content, then news outlets will only be competing among themselves which evens the paying field. They won't be competing from the entertainment players.

The solution lies in people volunteering, sacrificing even, to counter the problem: news outlets, sense-making institutions and organizations, must foster and nurture trust instead of thinking they need to counter other agendas with their own.

If a news institution wants to redeem itself, heads must roll, figuratively. The social engineers and other corrupt self-righteous agents need to be fired, and the staff that are committed to building a trustworthy organization would need to replace them very carefully. And to foster a greater pool of these candidates, enough universities need to find the courage to stand up to the insane, disconnected Marxists that have rooted themselves everywhere in academia.

It's not impossible but with economics of the news business, you can see where this would require a lot of profit sacrificed. It's more important than money, though. Hopefully some can see that.

The hardest part of this would not be restricting 'Factual' news to sites that label themselves News, it would be determining who decides what is actual truth. It would seem simple to just get the actual story and present that, but any story with two people involved has 3 different stories.

Story from person A
Story from person B
and the truth

Even when news agencies try to provide both sides of a political story, it is obvious that the writer leans towards one truth of the story, either by limiting the other side or even getting quotes that don't reflect the other side of the story. So, it would take several back and forth questioning to get all sides of the stories in order to put it down in a manner that was as close to the True Story that happened.

The biggest hurdle to acceptance of this new way of getting news, will be that people will know that the News site is the story and is factual, but they would rather get it from the other place, because it will have information faster and more in-line with what they think the story is.

This sounds bit ambitious. Sites titled under news should only publish facts and no editorial content looks quite a big challenge. May be google can remove their google news approvals to the site that have more than a news content

There are so many lies out there, that are presented as News, which confuses far too many people. It needs to be fixed!