• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      37 hours ago

      When a judge decides to convict someone of murder, we all know they might be wrong. The judge is not entitled to decide what objective reality is, he just decides how the judiciary system sees and treats the situation, as someone has to do it.

      The same thing should be applied to fake news, which is sharing (dis)information with the false appearance of some verified news piece to influence people into making certain decisions.

      Of course, there’s a big potential for censorship in how we treat fake news. So this treatment should follow clear objective criteria and be absolutely transparent.

      • I see ur point but just kinda sounds like censorship with extra steps. For example we have seen the american courts are racist, sexist, classist, unfair cesspools, its nessasary evil to maibtain civil order but i dont want those same standards applied to speach.

        Also from a philosophical point of view free speach and the marketplace of ideas is the fundamental building block upon which democraticy itself is build.

        Etc etc insert George Orwell quote here

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          159 minutes ago

          transparency is precisely what can make regulations not be censorship, or I should hope so.