As long as the source of trust is independent of the government or even big business, it would work and be trustworthy
That sounds like wishful thinking
Just make it a law that if as a social media company you allow unverified videos to be posted, you don’t get safe harbour protections from libel suits for that. It would clear right up. As long as the source of trust is independent of the government or even big business, it would work and be trustworthy.
bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
General_Effort@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Back in the day, many rulers allowed only licensed individuals to operate printing presses. It was sometimes even required that an official should read and sign off on any text before it was allowed to be printed.
Freedom of the press originally means that exactly this is not done.
FunderPants@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
Jesus, how did I get so old only to just now understand that press is not journalism, but literally the printing press in ‘Freedom of the press’.
vithigar@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
You understand that there is a difference between being not permitted to produce/distribute material and being accountable for libel, yes?
“Freedom of the press” doesn’t mean they should be able to print damaging falsehood with repercussion.
General_Effort@lemmy.world 7 months ago
What makes the original comment legally problematic (IMHO), is that it is expected and intended to have a chilling effect pre-publication. Effectively, it would end internet anonymity.
It’s not necessarily unconstitutional. I would have made the argument if I thought so. The point is rather that history teaches us that close control of publications is a terrible mistake.
The original comment wants to make sure that there is always someone who can be sued/punished, with obvious consequences for regime critics, whistleblowers, and the like.
vithigar@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
So your suggestion is that libel, defamation, harassment, et al are just automatically dismissed when using online anonymous platforms? We can’t hold the platform responsible, and we can’t identify the actual offender, so whoops, no culpability?
I strongly disagree.
Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 7 months ago
We need to take history into account but I think we’d be foolish to not acknowledge the world has indeed changed.
Freedom of the press never meant that any old person could just spawn a million press shops and pedal whatever they wanted. At best the rich could, and nobody was anonymous for long.
Personally I’m for publishing via proxy (i.e. an anonymous tip that a known publisher/person is responsible for) … I’m not crazy about “anybody can write anything on any political topic and nobody can hold them accountable offline.”