> the non-trivial cost, workload and time it took to deal with a very simple libel case
Any court case will involve non-trivial cost, workload, and time. Even legal matters that never make it to a court involve non-trivial cost, workload, and time. My wife and I had a condo association threatening us with fines and litigation for something we hadn't done and had shown them proof that we hadn't done; we had to hire a lawyer and spend quite a bit of time, effort, and money just to reach a stalemate until the condo was sold.
However, you can't fix that problem by just passing new laws, because the whole problem is that the way the court system functions does not respect the spirit of the laws to begin with. And it's that way because we citizens have allowed it to get that way, because most people don't have enough dealings with the legal system to (a) see how messed up it is, and (b) see the impact it has on ordinary people who are unlucky enough to have to deal with it.
> The problem with the press engaging in constant lies and manipulation is that the vast majority of the population (I'll guess 99%) consumes without questioning any of it.
And you can't fix that problem by passing new laws either. (I actually don't think the percentage is as high as you say; but I'll agree that it's high enough to be a problem.) The only way to fix it is for enough people to realize that they are being lied to and manipulated and stop consuming the media that is doing it.
> I think the simple addition of the word "truthful" to the first amendment could be enough.
Who gets to decide what a "truthful" press is? Why, the same legal system that we've already established is a mess. So the "truthful" press will end up being...the same press we have now: whoever has enough money to prevail in any legal fight.
Agreed. Agreed. Not an easy problem. Not sure if it's worth giving up though.
I have two family members that have self-radicalized through their consumption of media. One on the left and the other on the right. As you might imagine, one of them lives on CNN/MSNBC and the other on Fox. And, of course, they both use Facebook and are exposed to the many resonant chambers the service offers at both extremes.
It has been truly painful to watch both of them walk deeper and deeper into dark caves of ignorance and hatred fueled by the lies and manipulation each camp produces every minute of every day. We have tried to pull them out of their caves to bring them back to some semblance of reality and failed miserably. The algorithms at play are far more powerful than anyone one could do other than isolating them from society for a year somewhere on earth.
I've said this before, the kinds of algorithms that help you dive deeper into learning how to tile your bathroom, build a table or learn how to use photoshop, the recommendation engines, are horribly suited for matters of politics and related domains. If you are tiling your bathroom it is actually good to be exposed to more and more material related to what you are doing. It will help you learn and do a better job. If, on the other hand, you end-up triggering the "hate Trump" or "hate Biden" (or pick something else) branches of the recommendation engines you are treated to a constant stream of garbage that, unimpeded, results in self radicalization over time.
Other than the race for click dollars, I don't understand why social media companies, google, etc., don't exercise a bit of social responsibility and use some of their AI prowess to avoid these kinds of self radicalizing trips down deeper and darker holes.
Back when I studied Philosophy in high school, many decades ago (not sure kids read the Greeks any more) we read and discussed Plato's "Allegory of the Cave". I never thought I would live through a real-life reenactment of the tale.
Any court case will involve non-trivial cost, workload, and time. Even legal matters that never make it to a court involve non-trivial cost, workload, and time. My wife and I had a condo association threatening us with fines and litigation for something we hadn't done and had shown them proof that we hadn't done; we had to hire a lawyer and spend quite a bit of time, effort, and money just to reach a stalemate until the condo was sold.
However, you can't fix that problem by just passing new laws, because the whole problem is that the way the court system functions does not respect the spirit of the laws to begin with. And it's that way because we citizens have allowed it to get that way, because most people don't have enough dealings with the legal system to (a) see how messed up it is, and (b) see the impact it has on ordinary people who are unlucky enough to have to deal with it.
> The problem with the press engaging in constant lies and manipulation is that the vast majority of the population (I'll guess 99%) consumes without questioning any of it.
And you can't fix that problem by passing new laws either. (I actually don't think the percentage is as high as you say; but I'll agree that it's high enough to be a problem.) The only way to fix it is for enough people to realize that they are being lied to and manipulated and stop consuming the media that is doing it.
> I think the simple addition of the word "truthful" to the first amendment could be enough.
Who gets to decide what a "truthful" press is? Why, the same legal system that we've already established is a mess. So the "truthful" press will end up being...the same press we have now: whoever has enough money to prevail in any legal fight.