I think it would be very difficult to set rigor (truth?) standards. There's a long history of truths that directly conflict with the "facts" provided, especially those from governments, which could probably not be reported under such scrutiny. I'm also curious how lying by omissions, which is the biggest problem I perceive, would be handled.
It should be your duty to be intentionally honest and only accidentally confusing in proportion to your time and experience in crafting messages. A carefully curated message should be required to be entirely honest, a quick retort can be less rigorous (but still not intentionally deceptive; much harder to prove, but also less likely to be perfectly deceptive).
https://www.openculture.com/2020/01/jim-lehrers-16-rules-for...
And fines to be small, similar to copyrighted media content sharing -- those who did initial leak would get large fines, those who just re-shared -- slap on the hand.
But it's not like doctors started washing their hands despite his evidence of mortality dropping from 18% to 2%.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease#Ignaz_S...
> My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
I.e. there's no medical protocol that tells doctor to prescribe unproven "accepted truth", at least not in important areas. It's way different to tell someone to ingest dangerous chemical compounds that were not even designed for medical purposes.
[1] https://mvellend.recherche.usherbrooke.ca/Asimov_anglosabote...
>Alex Jones is going through bankruptcy. When it gets egregious enough, there are consequences.
Yeah, that was really egregious and caused real harm to a lot of people. But again, that lawsuit only succeeded because a group of victims claimed harm. I imagine the previous poster intended for the "deceptive news" laws to be like pollution laws, where prosecutors just need to prove the act but don't need victims.
I think it would advance the death of the freedom of the press [2], disallowing truths that go agains the governing bodies, more than anything.
[1] https://www.webfx.com/blog/internet/the-6-companies-that-own...
[2] https://www.cima.ned.org/publication/chilling-legislation/
What’s concerning about this approach is who gets to determine what is and is not misinformation. Having that power is a great way to silence those who don’t agree with you.
But instead of fining them, I think it would be more productive as a punishment to send these people to into rehabilitation camps in more remote regions of the country, where they could pay their fine by working community service for a few years.