• MudMan@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    I’m saying that holding a news outlet accountable for accuracy could work in a news landscape where people get their information from a handful of outlets that all reach a broad audience. In a world where a lot of people get small pieces of misinformation from thousands or millions of tiny sources spread across social media it is much harder to keep a centralized control on accuracy for all those communications, even discounting all the issues with free speech and opinion.

    • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I’m saying that holding a news outlet accountable for accuracy could work in a news landscape where people get their information from a handful of outlets that all reach a broad audience. In a world where a lot of people get small pieces of misinformation from thousands or millions of tiny sources spread across social media it is much harder to keep a centralized control on accuracy for all those communications

      Hm, I do agree that many outlets/sources may make things “messier”, but I don’t think that it would mean that the laws could no longer apply — for example, I think, defamation laws could still apply to anyone.

      • MudMan@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 minutes ago

        As I think someone else already pointed out, defamation is not a major part of the issue and it’s already in place quite strictly in many places without making a dent on the issue.

        And yes, it’s absolutely defeated by scale. You can’t start a legal process against every single tweet and facebook post (let alone every message in a Whatsapp group you can’t even see in the first place). As with paywalls, the aggregate effect ends up being that large outlets are held to a high standard while misinformation spread through social media is not just cheaper to make but less accountable.