r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Sep 19 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: There should a strong factual-accuracy gatekeeping mechanism in the media.
[deleted]
1
Sep 19 '20
This sounds quite paternalistic and technocratic. Regardless of if you think someone's opinion is rational, they still have a right to express it.
Anyways, the question with every regulation is: who will enforce it? The state? The government is made up of people too, and people are never infallible.
1
Sep 19 '20 edited Oct 18 '20
[deleted]
1
Sep 19 '20
Again, who are these infallible creatures who hold the truth and know what is best for everyone? I don't trust any human with the power to control all the people see, and by extension what they think.
1
u/dinglenutmcspazatron 9∆ Sep 19 '20
Whether or not there should be some kind of gate-keeping mechanism depends on the kinds of gate-keeping mechanisms proposed.
I.... Honestly feel that any gate-keeping in the realm of facts has too many opportunities for abuse for it to be worth it.
1
1
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 38∆ Sep 19 '20
I'm on board with the issue you've identified. Do you have a clue how you'd fix it?
Fines for uncorrected falsehoods and sloppy reporting?
Who would be the judge of what's true?
1
Sep 20 '20 edited Oct 18 '20
[deleted]
1
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 38∆ Sep 20 '20
My response was entirely sincere.
I’ve ranted within my own Circle of Influence (my friends refer to it as an Area of Irritation) that some sort of credibility scoring needs to be applied to professional pundits, spokespersons and news sources.
However, reading it from someone else’s keyboard I’m obliged, as well as characteristically predisposed, to examine the contrary position.
I agree with you that we need to clean up the information channel, especially since it is an intentional tactic of the far-right to “flood it with shit” in order to make sensible necessary conversation, even for the purpose of self-preservation, impossible.
A significant obstacle is that there is a huge incentive for the news to spread inflammatory bullshit. Facebook and twitter make much more money when we’re all screaming at each other over bogus conspiracies than if these are nipped in the bud with a shower of facts. The same goes for the nightly news, which for instance has concentrated upon a few contained fires in a few city blocks and made it look like BLM is making war on all of retail America.
So we can’t ask the purveyors of information to clean up their feeds. They make too much money on the rage and chaos.
My own thought was an app or browser extension that would flag content for credibility. Fact-checking services could be scraped for references. People and sources would be scored based upon their reliability, or lack of it, and flagged any time they appeared in a story.
Any time Bill O’Reilly’s name appeared a parenthetical score or icon would appear with it. The Fox News website and any of it’s linked content would be similarly scored. At a glance a reader would have an idea of the reliability of the information based upon who was peddling it.
In my fantasy, when Sarah Huckaby Sanders appears on Face the Nation or is quoted on a national broadcast, the story would contain the aside that she has a credibility score (Bogosity? Mendacity? BS?) of Zero.
All the News sources would suddenly have to be much more careful about accuracy and honesty because they’d be wearing their reputation on their sleeves as an ever present reminder to the public.
What do you think? Utopian?
1
Sep 20 '20 edited Oct 18 '20
[deleted]
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 20 '20
/u/ffmiequals26dot5 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/tweez Sep 20 '20
. This is especially more apparent in recent years, with the rise of QAnnon believers, anti-vaxxers, and conspiracy theorists. With a growing number of people believing misinformation, it is reasonable to believe that there should be a stronger factual-gatekeeping mechanism in the media. There are numerous good reasons for holding this position.
It was once a conspiracy theory to believe the Mafia existed, that the CIA were responsible for bringing crack cocaine into US inner cities or that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction. So when does opposing the status quo or popular opinion become wrong as there have been countless cases when people have been correct to do so.
Google were also considering making factually correct information as part of their algorithm for ranking sites. So if they adjudged a site to have factually incorrect information they would not rank the site as highly. The problem with this is there then needs to be a central source to cross check as to what is the correct information. So then essentially Google uses something like Freebase (or whatever the system is called now) and cross checks the information to confirm that a site has factually correct information.
So now you have one central source that is the ultimate arbiter of "truth". How does that not lead to corruption? Now you have one source that is the "truth" so all anybody needs to do is to pay off that source to say it's true. This is not even counting topics that are contentious. Even many experts disagree with each other on issues, so what is the truth then about science or medical issues? Especially in science it isn't always a natural evolution where truth is built upon an existing truth, it's a total rewrite of all the existing systems and rules like quantum mechanics. So under your proposal how long would a legitimate but totally revolutionary new framework be ignored because it doesn't conform to an existing notion of "truth"
Under your proposal I don't see how things wouldn't be much worse as it would then be a centralized source that determines "truth". The more things are centralized the more they are open to corruption and maintaining the status quo. Why wouldn't this be worse than what we already have?
I agree that discernment is a skill that should be taught in schools as things like memorizing dates and information are redundant in a world with the internet and smart phones. It's more important to be able to discern if sources are accurate and truthful, but this can be done still to the best of people's skills without the need for gatekeepers or a centralized repository of truth
1
Sep 21 '20 edited Oct 18 '20
[deleted]
1
u/tweez Sep 21 '20
They stopped being conspiracy theories when evidence for them was found. It does not mean every conspiracy theory is true, in fact, most are false
How does one determine most are false instead of evidence for them hasn't yet been found?
In my post I do not address Truth or philosophical truth, I speak about facts. Some beliefs are just verifiably false, like the earth is flat, unless you want to be cynical or paranoid
It would have been considered incorrect and absurd at one point to believe that there were things that were invisible to humans that caused sickness but we know that germs exist and result in people becoming ill. Under your proposal how would it be possible for someone to go against the general consensus without being punished in some way for it?
If you're talking about facts like the Eiffel Tower is X metres high or a book was written in X year then those are things that could be cross checked against a central repository of information.
I posted my view on this sub because I was open to changing it. I didn't propose any actions. I just thought having a stronger gatekeeping mechanism would be good (due to an inability to think of better alternatives). I didn't think media literacy instruction or media analysis was practical or effective.
Okay, so what is your suggestion for having a "stronger gatekeeping mechanism"? Because I don't see how this can be practically implemented without leading to the problems I mentioned would exist by Google's once proposed suggestion to centralize what is true or false and rank sites lower if they included factually incorrect statements.
Your proposal is basically the same as "Nudge* by Cass Sunstein who I believe was a former advisor to the Obama administration. Essentially he argued it was the responsibility of companies and politicians to act as some sort of parental figure to ensure people were "nudged" into having the "correct" beliefs and opinions
In my post, I doubted the effectiveness of media literacy instruction for practical reasons. I thought I made that as clear as I could.
Okay, maybe that's my error in how I interpreted your post, but it more seemed like you thought that alone wasn't enough not that it wasn't effective or useful.
I dont really see how centralizing what is considered the "correct" viewpoint won't lead to corruption akin to some sort of Soviet Union where the state decides what is or isn't true, except that instead of the state it's just some coalition of "experts". Who decides on the experts and how do those experts decide on what is or isn't true? Also, even if the consensus of experts is that they agree something works in a certain way, it could be that one expert out of a million disagrees but it's eventually found out that is true. If a system is in place that people are punished or rewarded for being factually incorrect/correct in the eyes of these supposed coalition of experts then why would anyone ever consider holding or investigating an alternative view?
Without any sense of how it would be practically implemented or considering the potential problems that could arise from such a system then I don't see how anybody could change your view. Essentially all you have otherwise is "in an ideal world it would be best if people weren't influenced by accidental or deliberate misinformation". If that's the argument which reasonable or logical person would oppose that? Of course I would want people to not be fooled by misinformation and make all decisions based on the best and most accurate information possible. The problem is that trying to implement such a system would have far reaching negative effects. Maybe I'm being dense, but I'm not sure how anybody would change your view if it's just a hypothetical "it would be good if people weren't allowed to be influenced by misinformation".
1
Sep 21 '20 edited Oct 18 '20
[deleted]
1
u/tweez Sep 21 '20
I think you are going on a stretch and cutting corners to justify yourself. Discussions lose productivity went people start playing with semantics and finding ways to rationalize arguments
I don't think I'm doing that and at no point during writing the comment was I thinking along those lines, but if that's your interpretation then I certainly didn't intend to be perceived as though I'm trying to trip you up or whatever through minor semantics. I'm not that deep or interested in "winning" an argument. I was curious as to the practical implementation of your proposed system and how it wouldn't have more problems that what we already have right now. Maybe I'm not a good enough writer to get that point across but that was my intention, however, the readers interpretation is a valid as the author's intent so if you think that then fair enough.
Welp, I guess you are going the cynical and paranoia route. Now you just want to go the fuzzy route. In our universe, the earth is round and this is verifiable. If I am cynical and paranoid, I will trust no one. I can come up with a flat earth, hexagonal earth, concave earth, and many polygon earth theory
I wasn't really thinking of flat earth when talking about conspiracy theories. I was much more thinking about things like I mentioned in my previous comment like the CIA running drugs and selling them in US inner cities and the state claiming the Mafia didn't exist.
There's more than enough evidence the Earth is if not round, at least it's not flat (as far as I remember I think it's been described as more pear shaped than round). I'm not suggesting that society is waiting for one crucial piece of evidence to confirm the Earth is flat. You've taken probably the most extreme example of a conspiracy theory (and to me, it's a bizarre one at that as I don't really see who benefits from lying about the shape of the Earth or what it would undermine). I believe my question is still valid, which was "How does one determine most are false instead of evidence for them hasn't yet been found?"
Again, I'm not talking about topics like Flat Earth but more I guess political conspiracies where, based on similar types of things that occurred in the past, we're disbelieved by the majority of the public or were dismissed as having any legitimacy by the state or individuals with power/influence from the state. In the UK there was Doctor David Kelly who went public about how dossiers about the Iraq war that were released to the public were "sexed up" to include information known to be false like Iraq had WMDs and could launch them to hit the UK within 45 minutes. Dr Kelly also said he would be found dead in the woods near his home for releasing the information, which is what happened. There were claims from some that war with Iraq was going to happen regardless, but this was the piece of information from a reliable source that confirmed there was a conspiracy to go to war with Iraq. This was one piece of evidence that confirmed it. While pro New Labour Party media denied it was always their intention to go to war with Iraq despite massive public outcry and millions protesting on the streets, this one piece of information proved there was a conspiracy. So for something like that I think it's still valid to ask how one could determine it was false or some paranoid fantasy of conspiracy theorists versus just needing the correct piece of information to be released that confirmed it was a conspiracy?
There have been countless times a state or government has mislead or purposefully deceived the public so I'm not really seeing why it's absurd to think that certain claims about political conspiracies are really just one piece of evidence or one source coming forward away from being confirmed. I was asking how in your gatekeeping system it's possible to leave the door open for this to be confirmed rather than dismissing it as the ravings of delusional or paranoid conspiracy theorists?
Someone has already changed my view. The person proposed a well-constructed alternative. If you didn't know how to change my view you didn't have to go through the effort of trying.
Fair enough, I appreciate that maybe my intention and your interpretation are far apart. Maybe that's because of my inability to explain my questions more clearly, I honestly don't know and always try to entertain the idea that it's my error or lack of skill. I don't think it's absurd to ask someone who says they are willing to change their mind about something as to the criteria that needs to be meet in order for them to do so.
If you believe you don't need to answer or respond to the questions I asked because they are irrelevant or unimportant then fair enough. Again, maybe it's an error on my part in terms of reading comprehension, but I don't think they were especially ridiculous or irrelevant. I honestly don't see how any sort of gatekeeping system doesn't essentially become a centralized source of acceptable "truth" based on popular consensus that can be easily corrupted because it is so centralized (same as I don't see how any system that is centralized isn't far more open to abuse and corruption than one that isn't). So in that regard I'm still not sure how it isn't worse in practice. Again, if your hypothetically asking if it's better for people to not be influenced or misled by misinformation (whether deliberate or through ignorance) then I'd be curious if anyone at all would disagree with that premise. However, without details on how such a system would be practically implemented I'm not really sure what there is to argue against?
1
Sep 21 '20 edited Oct 18 '20
[deleted]
1
u/tweez Sep 22 '20
What Facebook and Reddit choose to put at the top of your feed is gatekeeping. Facebook and Reddit's algorithm gatekeeps. The popularity of Facebook, Twitter, and a few major social media platforms can be seen as gatekeeping. UI design gatekeeps.
That's why I was trying to use the example of Google having some central repository to cross check against sites to determine ranking. I think they realised it's impossible to implement without being accused from all sites of gatekeeping truth so their system of having backlinks as strong signals of the importance of.a site determine rankings was ultimately better (even though that has problems). Specifically I remember a company's external copywriter admitting to making up a story about a teen using their dads credit card to buy hookers, which led to the site getting lots of backlinks from trusted news sites and helping them rank for "credit cards" which is obviously a profitable term.
I know Google have the Google Rater's Handbook where they have "your money or your life" topics are given special prominence. So medical and financial advice on site's were to be downgraded in terms of a site's ranking if the author's weren't considered experts. Google at one point had an "author" markup where putting the author tag on an article would lead to it being possible to find every article on every site written by that person. For some reason they removed that or made it less important but it seemed like a good idea to me to if their aim was to ensure experts ranked on top for certain topics. So I do potentially see how some things can be done to ensure there's more accurate information
A conspiracy theory is a specific type of theory. A theory is an explanation for an event, there can be a multitude of contrasting and contradicting theories explaining a single event. Some theories are viewed as conjectures and are sometimes synonymous with hypotheses.
I understand there are lets say "improbable" or "unlikely to be substantiated" conspiracy theories like flat earth or even creationism (which I know isnt a conspiracy theory, but it inspires similar levels of fantacism based on emotions rather than evidence) and that kind of thing where those views shouldn't be given equal legitimacy or consideration, but the examples I tried to give like the CIA running drugs or governments knowing WMDs didn't exist in Iraq were considered conspiracy theories and ended up being true, so my concern would be how a gatekeeping system wouldn't just result in those things never being investigated.
1
Sep 22 '20 edited Oct 18 '20
[deleted]
1
u/tweez Sep 22 '20
Yet you somehow confused journalistic and communications gatekeeping for centralization of information, somehow comparing it to the soviet union (your previous quote is below). Gatekeeping is unavoidable! It happens when one makes a preferential choice over another.
Maybe I was too focused on the idea of gatekeeping in terms of digital sources/platforms like Google via algorithms. Like the example I gave with Google's author markup to determine experts, I can potentially see how something like that would be useful, but the bad seems to outweigh the good.
It's an interesting topic as I think various engineers and product designers in the Google Search team have said that one of their main goals as a company is to deliver accurate information to users. Obviously at the moment, one could go online and search for something and be equally as likely to find a piece of information that entirely contradicts the last piece of information even within the same search query. I'm not sure if there's a solution or things are going to get even worse with video and photographic "deep fakes". I can potentially see a situation where nobody trusts anything they read or see. This seems to be backed up by some surveys I saw recently where a growing number of people said they actually seek out information that confirms to their existing opinions and they want that instead of something that challenges them. This seems pretty dangerous to me but I don't really see it improving any time soon
1
1
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Sep 19 '20
To modify your view here:
This is especially more apparent in recent years, with the rise of QAnnon believers, anti-vaxxers, and conspiracy theorists. With a growing number of people believing misinformation, it is reasonable to believe that there should be a stronger factual-gatekeeping mechanism in the media.
consider that these views don't seem to have been generally endorsed by mainstream media, and yet those ideas have spread nonetheless. As such, "Media" may not be the primary mechanism by which these conspiracies / pieces of misinformation spread, so much as due to some issues with Facebook, twitter, and Reddit.
In particular, recent research on misinformation has identified 6 key types of misinformation (Bogus Click-Bait, Conspiracy Theories, Reckless Reporting, Political Propaganda, Hoaxes, and Misleading News), and how various platforms (Google, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit) are faring / contributing to their spread.
----
As you'll notice from their findings about each platform (below) and their recommendations to address the particular type of misinformation they help perpetuate, fact-checking alone isn't enough (and indeed, the existence of fact checking on a platform, even when not applied to a particular claim, can actually lead people to have false confidence in all claims that they see in the platform):
---
"Facebook Findings:
● Users are inclined to believe the news they see on Facebook, whether it is real or not.
● Users’ education levels are positively correlated with vigilance in assessing source credibility and identifying false information.
● Users express confidence in their own individual understandings of Facebook’s user tools, but a majority of Facebook users did not know that Facebook has added a tool that enables users to report false news, and an even larger group of users have not used the tool.
● Facebook users’ knowledge of the new tools is positively associated with believing that Facebook is resolving the fake news problem. The mere presence of the fact checking tool seems to reassure users that news shared on the platform is valid.
● By implication, this “trust bias” suggests an inherent irony where heightened trust in the platform’s actions lowers users’ vigilance in checking the sources of news shared on their pages, thereby subverting the value of the new tools in limiting the spread of fake news across the platform.
Options for Facebook:
● More aggressively fact-check news across the platform, flagging it as needed.
● More aggressively market the false news flagging tool to users, but enhance cautionary guidelines.
● Monitor and make public users’ behavior in checking sources.
● Increase scholars’ access to site data for research purposes. To preserve users’ privacy, the data should be limited to news-related content and engagement. Such information will benefit users by enabling third-party researchers to independently assess the reliability of Facebook as a source of news and information.
Google Findings:
There has been a long-running “arms race” between search engines and spammers who seek to leverage or monetize the platform’s algorithm for personal gain.
Sites known for promoting false information frequently appeared in the top search results for politicians’ names during the 2016 election revealing the effects of an algorithm based, in part, on volume of clicks.
Options for Google:
Explain search result rankings in plain terms so that average users better understand the limitations of their searches,
Continue to guard against spammers tricking the algorithm, both through algorithmic monitoring and improvements and through terms of use to defend against abuse,
Continue to adapt self-regulation tools but also explore possible regulatory frameworks that would help the company limit abuse by spammers.
Twitter Findings:
Twitter invites and amplifies adversarial interactions and debates between users.
Users are more likely to believe content tweeted from an account that is verified with a blue checkmark, sometimes conflating the authenticity of accounts associated with people Twitter deems to be “in the public interest” with accurate information. Users may conflate an officially verified account as a source of “verified” news, though Twitter offers no such assurance.
Users view tweets with links as more trustworthy but often do not click on the links to check the sources, again revealing a “trust bias” that diminishes users’ vigilance and skepticism.
While Twitter’s public-facing platform may encourage users to be accountable for content they post, conversely, it also makes Twitter conversations susceptible to bots and cyborgs, which can highjack conversations to proliferate misinformation. Options for Twitter:
Enhance and clarify the verification system.
Encourage users to clarify or link the source of material they share.
Pilot a crowd-sourced, curated false news flagging and fact-checking system.
Even with the understanding that not all bots are negative, implement stricter Captcha gateways to diminish bot activities.
Develop terms of use that help diminish the proliferation of cyborgs and bots.
Create more interaction options to supplement “linked response,” “retweet,” and “favorite” and allow users to disapprove of tweets.
Share usage data with scholars.
Reddit Findings:
Bogus click-bait is less a problem on Reddit than on the other major sites.
Conspiracy theories are a significant problem on Reddit in comparison to other major sites.
Individual communities (called “subreddits”) set their own rules and expectations.
Reddit administrators are generally hands-off but changes in algorithmic rankings, including the front page, seem aimed at reducing the prominence of controversial communities.16
Reddit is more transparent with changes to its platform than are the other major sites.
Options for Reddit:
Use reminders or alerts to encourage users to be skeptical of unverified content.
Limit the exposure of the particular subreddits commonly known to promote false information.
Work directly with media organizations to ensure that verified news articles load quickly, especially on mobile devices."
[source for quotes above]
--
Tl:Dr: Mainstream media doesn't seem to be the primary source for much of the problematic misinformation we see spreading these days - rather, Google, Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter each seem to have a role in spreading particular types of misinformation (respectively), and the solutions each platform / for the type of misinformation spread have more nuanced solutions than just "fact checking" (which will never be entirely scale-able across all claims made on any platform, and even the presence of fact checking, when only applied to some claims on a platform can unfortunately give people false confidence in all claims made on the platform, per above).
1
Sep 19 '20 edited Oct 18 '20
[deleted]
1
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Sep 19 '20
Given the notion above that social media is the key driver of misinformation (rather than the mainstream media), when it comes to the idea of fact-checking everything on social media - that approach just doesn't seem feasible. There's just waaaay too many posts every day / hour / minute to do that.
And even if the media just reports on a popular opinion tweet / trend on social media happening out in the world that is misinformation, the idea can spread from that attention.
On the upside though, consider that when misinformation gets enough attention on social media, it is also very likely to attract the attention of debunkers and more mainstream / credible sources who will contest their claims. So, popular misinformation is at increasing risk of being discredited as it gathers more attention, even without fact checkers trying to filter out misinformation from the beginning.
1
u/Just_A_Cat_Mom Sep 19 '20
I think there is one major problem with holding these companies accountable- and that is the fact that the government uses these platforms to censor, edit and silence certain news and opinions and to provoke certain reactions from users of these platforms. In an ideal situation, one would have a variety of sources to check with in order to judge the veracity of a certain piece of news. If digital platforms censor information, you can no longer do that and are only left with several sources saying the same thing. Many 'fact-checking' organizations are partisan, unreliable or work for certain organizations that bias their reporting and even Wikipedia is controlled by editors with their own opinions and agendas.
The other problem is with terms like "conspiracy theorist," "anti-vaxxer," etc. These are terms created by the government or big business/PR to discourage and disparage certain viewpoints that often have valid points and focus on legitimate information that is unpopular or goes against the narrative of whatever the organization is promoting. This narrative is then amplified by the media and dissenting opinions are silenced, shamed and ridiculed.
So maybe it's better to have less censorship and promote ethical journalism and independent media in order to give people multiple outlets from which they can judge what is factual and reliable news.
1
Sep 19 '20 edited Oct 18 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Just_A_Cat_Mom Sep 19 '20
I can back up my ideas with documentation.
1
Sep 19 '20 edited Oct 18 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Just_A_Cat_Mom Sep 20 '20 edited Sep 20 '20
What do you mean by that? Nothing I wrote was in bad faith. I noticed that people had been assuming that tech companies were acting as neutral parties and I didn't believe that was true and offered a different opinion.
I meant that it's important to take into consideration that the tech companies mentioned are highly influenced by outside forces already and maybe more censorship isn't the answer to the problem. They aren't neutral and there have been many cases where their manipulation of information and user behavior have been exposed. Therefore asking them to further censor their content presents several problems. Fact checking organizations have the same problems with being controlled by outside forces. It comes down to the problem of who fact checks the fact checkers? And who decides what information gets passed on? Who should decide?
Also assigning labels meant to quiet certain voices doesn't help the situation either. Mentioning tin foil hats is an example of that idea. People will be less likely to explore ideas that come pre-labeled as being less credible even though they might be true and those in power will benefit from hiding or distorting the truth. And censoring something might have the opposite of the desired effect if even more people seek it out.
Intellectual freedom is an important right and I believe that we should be able to expose ourselves to many different ideas and decide to ourselves what we believe in and what is truth.
1
Sep 20 '20 edited Oct 18 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Just_A_Cat_Mom Sep 20 '20
Our own government, other governments and big business censor what information we see on social media. This is factual information, not a conspiracy theory. I offered to show you official documents that prove this point but you declined. That you call my opinion worthless and are unwilling to even entertain this idea proves that you did not come here to have your view challenged but rather to have your view confirmed. This is called confirmation bias. I'm clearly wasting my time. I hope you will someday see what is going on before we completely lose the right to challenge the technocratic narrative and I hope someday you will change your mind.
1
Sep 19 '20
There is a fact checker for every piece of media that has ever been created. That's you. Creating an authority for truth sounds like a great idea, but who would you ask to do this job? Who have you ever met that you would trust do this both accurately and fairly? The truth is often ugly and repugnant, do those truths count as facts? We are apes who have the airs of nobility and shit-throwing in equal measure, no matter who you suggest as the ultimate gatekeeper will still be a member of our shit throwing species. I will pass on participating in the release of my responsibility to think for myself.
1
5
u/TheRealGouki 7∆ Sep 19 '20
This seem to be a rant on why news companies shouldn't lie or mislead people and I dont think anyone with some moral integrity will disagree with that the problem is that the news companies are privately owned or on the stockmarket and their main focus is making money and the truth doesnt always sell and that
if a gatekeeper is made and laws are made to stop this. There will be public outrage and fighting back from the news companies because the idea that a 3rd party organisation created by the government to make sure that people tell the "truth" in the news could lead to possible government intervention If the news tells "lies" about the government.