Whereas:
- In a democracy, many people take part in making decisions for the common good.
- When people take part in making a decision, but base their thinking on false information, that decision is unlikely to fulfill its intent. False information harms our democracy and undermines the common good.
- The more a lie spreads, the harder it is to stop. Limiting lies on mass media would help.
- Such a limit, applied only to organizations, need not abridge any (human) person’s freedom of speech or freedom of the press.
Therefore:
- No organization may convey misleading information to an audience of 100,000 or more, except:
- When accompanied closely by a clear, explicit statement that the information is false or
- When conveyed in a context where fiction is welcome and expected.
- The maximum penalty for any infraction is one dollar per audience member per lie.
(end)
Expected Results
- Politicians would try to tell the truth. Dishonest candidates for public office would be winnowed out long before election.
- Media companies would routinely fact-check popular posts, label known lies, and limit the reach of known liars*. Misinformation would be slowed and inoculated before it could go viral.
- Unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and quackery would fade away quickly.
- We, the people of the United States, would hear mostly truth. We would trust mostly trustworthy sources. Our collective decisions would improve, resulting in a better world for everyone.
* For example, each of the big cable news networks has a prime-time audience of 2-4 million and an annual net profit of about $1 billion. So the annualized penalty for one lie per day would be about the same as their profit. Social media companies have even more to lose, conveying thousands of lies every day to hundreds of millions of followers (potential fines of up to billions of dollars a day).
To comment, or for more information, contact William Spademan.