I support a warning about misinformation. What kind of warning? Well let’s discuss it. I abhor censorship. Censorship should be a legal crime against free speech in every part of our American culture. Maybe there can be a reputable science fact based entity that reviews flagged posts for accuracy and is the only entity allowed to post a warning about a post’s accuracy. Outright censoring is wrong because people don’t get to see the post and decide for themselves. By allowing the post WITH a warning, we are allowing the public to see the post and allow them to decide if the entity is correct in applying a warning.
Fact checking and Free Speech
I agree with my hero Christopher on this topic, specifically the part starting at 9.11:
Maybe there can be a reputable science fact based entity that reviews flagged posts for accuracy and is the only entity allowed to post a warning about a post’s accuracy.
That is truly the biggest problem. Such a committee would require the possibility to choose extremely genius and the least biased people on earth. How would it be possible for the average human to understand who the genius is?
If the election wouldn't be democratic, because the general man is too stupid, then there would be an elite selecting those geniuses. Which again, is a bad idea as the elite probably would be very fallible in a different way and would exploit this selection for their own personal gain.
That is, I think, the reason why we don't have such entity. It's just not realistically feasible to choose the right people for the job, the right way.
A real world example
YouTube did try and still does such a thing. Every video that talks about the Corona virus is provided with a warning that one should always check the official status quo of the virus on the WHO's official web presence, instead of trusting or relying on some YouTube video.
However, the funny thing is, the WHO is far away from being the absolute truth on the virus. At one time it even reportedly fell for some conspiracy theory regarding a popular fever medication and they actually propagated it as truth!
So this is one real life example, where this warning type of system is failing horribly.
@Akito I truly miss Christopher Hitchens,
I guess I am too lazy to do the work involved in determining what is true and what is not. I hate to believe I am NOT the only one. So how do we educate the lot of them/us not to rely on an entity to add information that could also be false by mistake. I was hoping that I figured out a way to adhere to the rule of free speech that states, and I'm paraphrasing here, to fight bad speech, you need more and more of good speech. If this entity could only add information in the warning, could NOT edit or censor parts of or the whole of a free speech, people could consider the fact checking and decide for themselves whether the fact checkers made a mistake or not.
Who would I hire to do the job? I don't think there is anyone who could do it let alone a team of people. But, I was thinking an entity like the CDC. Maybe an entity for each main subject like Science, Medicine, Policy, etc. Maybe for each addition of information, they also provide a link with proof of the accuracy of the free speech thereby giving the entity the inclination to add the info. They would be doing some of the work of determining the accuracy of the free speech thereby helping the lazy folk.
The lazy people would be glad to have such (an) entity(ies) and I think the most adherent of free speech could swallow the info given by such entities. Is there ANY way of adding info with a link to the proof without actually censoring the free speech? Why not? I know nothing humans have ever done has been perfect, so I expect the entities to make a mistake here and there.
I recently just read (about ~2 month-ish ago - before the Pandemic #ISO kicked in) Hitchen's "Why Got Is Not Great", and I miss him too. Got me to reading his expose of Mother Theresa too (watched the doco years ago).
Sometimes finding out the truth and having it being so confronting can be trying, e.g. I couldn't finish Noam Chomsky's "How The World Works", because I already kinda knew most of it - but pretended it wasn't that way for my peace of mind.
Chomsky and Hitchens sometimes agree with one another, but more often than not, they were at loggerheads, for polemacy's sake? I know they're both probably considered polemacists (I had someone recently use that word, to discount stuff that Hitchens had to say).