Who determines what is true and what's a lie? Why do you trust them to make the right call?
We can barely get republicans and democrats to agree on a budget, what makes anyone think that they could reasonably come to an agreement on objective standards of truth in media? Let alone a process by which those standards are enforced? This is way, wayyyyy outside the realm of reality.
On the other side, facts are facts. Assuming you actually have all the facts (which often we don't), there is only a single truth.
The percentage drop in window power megawatts is a “fact.” What “caused” the Texas power outage is a multi-variable system analysis that produces a conclusion, not a fact, under certain specified assumptions. (This is obvious to an engineer: the NTSB spends months investigating what “caused” a plane crash, and issues a report with conclusions, not facts. The notion that some journalist can in a day or two perform a similar analysis on a complex system like a power grid, and report the result as a “fact” blinks reality.)
The new york times won't run a story sympathetic to liberal individuals pushing back against the excesses of critical race theory. Fox news won't report on how even though there were anomalies in the election, none justified stopping the transfer of power to the Biden administration. Both are bullshit.
An no, if you ban "disinformation" you ban free speech. There is no way to figure out if a flat earther publishes something for disinformation purpose or if he really believes what he writes. Disinformation is best frighted by debunking it, not by removing it. Most people have heard form the flat earth but most dont believe it. Because they can inform themself. That's how it should be. No need to "save" everyone trough authoritarian measures. The risk here is way higher than having to deal with some forever flat earther.
I used to believe that as well. Then we did real world practical experiments over the last decade. It's clear most people don't give a shit about informing themselves and will readily believe just about anything.
Not saying the solution is regulating what can / cannot be said, but this idea that free speech is the ultimate thing isn't working when you have groups that can spend troves of cash making their disinformation legitimate enough for the masses.
Both you and i probably believe at least one, maybe more of those things, by the way. It's not all outlandish nonsense, sometimes it's reasonable enough to believe at first glance and you don't bother looking it up afterwards.
So back to the start. You cant have an authority who decide. whats right or wrong has to be proofed/debunked. And it can not be removed afterwards as this would invalidate the debunking. This is a slow and inefficient process we should probably focus on making it better because it works, it just does not work as good and as fast as the modern world would require. The shortcut "solutions" however will most likely not work at all and potentially case more harm than good.
What do we do when the things they choose to influence the population on are no longer just "the rich getting richer" but become actual existential threats? When they get dictators elected, make climate change worse, endanger lives by producing healthcare misinformation, etc?
Does it matter that, over the long term, there are more idealistic freedom of speech ideals if we don't live long enough to even get to the long term?
Certainly you dont want to give these powerful people the tools to become more powerfully by implementing an authoritarian system against disinformation. Its rather obvious that if these powerful people can not circumvent that system they will become the system. If they can manipulate millions they sure can manipulate or replace the few "decision makers" too. Now you have powerful people spreading disinformation who also have the power to remove any critics simply by labeling it disinformation.
Like it’s literally the same ideas as fraud but applied to misinformation. If you believe that climate change is a hoax then you’re fine, tell the world. But if you make up a study and data “disproving” climate change and then circulate it in Facebook then you’re not.
In general, we are comfortable doing this in at least some contexts. The legal system in almost every case attempts to ascertain intention to satisfy the mens rea of a criminal act. They don't have mind reading devices, but they do have expert witnesses such as psychologists and doctors, and testimony.
If one doesn’t believe in the Holocaust, yet publishes erudite webpages with the intent to mislead others (at least from his POV) into thinking it really happened, would that be a problem?
If yes, you are consistent, albeit a bit crazy.
If no, your rule reduces, once again, to a focus on the falsity of the communication as opposed to the writers intent.
It becomes a bigger issue if the evidence on the site is made up but I won’t assume that.
Human knowledge is pretty advanced and accessible.