Nostr Web Client

I don't think a ministry of truth is a good idea, but how about this.

A State could define 'journalism' in some formal sense:

The point of which people are free to flag their publications as 'journalism TM', and have to be able to proof due diligence:

You know the basic stuff of sources, verifying, whatever is the basic list that is in all the journalism textbooks.

With this in place, there should be a low barrier to sue these selfproclamed "journalist TM" for their publications;

The defending journalist does not need to proof their claims are correct, but show a judge he did his due diligence. Failing to do so will result in fines.

This way, you can just say whatever, and people can percieve it as whatever, if the publicist is not prepared to turn their articticle or whatever into testemony and put their balls on the line.

And when some "journalist TM" is talking absolute crap, you can make him pay for it and punish that behavior.

'Fake news' is fucking everywhere and its a combination of agenda driven bias, lies or lazyness. The lies and the lazyness should be faily easy to expose via a due diligence tests. And there will always be this non-formal domain where people can and probably will post all kinds of wild claims. That is not the point; the point is that instead of governments becomming tyranical speech policers, they could perhaps provide a noise filter as a service.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

CTarian 5mo ago

The State being any where near defining anything but real criminal behavior is a bad bad bad BAD idea. That's the world we've been living in for decades and are now getting rid of. Free markets will take care of the winners and losers..

Constant 5mo ago

Lying is criminal behavior.

Also markets are a product of the state. The thing you are simply ignoring is fraud, and repression against it

CTarian 5mo ago

Yes, lying is criminal behavior.. In our Constitutional Republic I don't think markets are a product of the State. Free Market Capitalists are always looking to invent the next mouse trap. The better widget. It's inbred in the free human I'd say. That said, I'm not sure we're ignoring fraud either. To have fraud we first have to have a contract.

It would be a party to that contract that committed the fraud. I suppose we could say fraud is a universal wrong and something all folks sailing on the economic ocean demand to have protection against per our Constitution..

Constant 5mo ago

Every transaction implies a contract under common law, and contracts by themselves are also worthless because they can be fraudulent by themselves (false premise etc.).

I dont give a fuck about your fancy better mousetrap if i can just apply toyota gun turret truck logic: yes, even in murica markets are a product of the state.

Caveat emptor pvp servers are not markets, they are a bazar.

Constant 5mo ago

That is to say:

If you present testimony to the public, in public, on matters public, you should be liable. All i am aksing is basic due diligence, and from reading a lot of MSM bullshit i KNOW they would fail that test and go bankrupt the second you could actually enforce things

Dawn 5mo ago

Bless your well-meaning heart. But that is not a good idea. At least, in most places.

Constant 5mo ago

I dont give a damn about most places frankly

Dawn 5mo ago

😂 its probably a fine idea then.

Jeroen Ubbink 5mo ago

At this point i have zero faith in any state defining the word "journalism" in any meaningful way that would make me believe it more than i do right now.

I think we have put way too much trust in journalism to begin with. No offense to well meaning journalists but this stuff needs to be verifiable ideally but i'd settle for peer review to make a slight improvement over what we have now. Reporting something without sources or review by others forces me to put all the trust in mostly single eye-witness testimony.

Constant 5mo ago

Would you not want to be able to sue liars and make some money off of it?

Jeroen Ubbink 5mo ago

But the liars would be decided by the rules of the state. In this case i reckon it would enable propaganda more than ever.

Constant 5mo ago

No, due diligence would be decided by the rules of the state; which would be simply the definition of the type of warranty you as a reader would have on the product/text, the moment a journalist would self declare to provide such a warranty.