Could be by a basket of organizations like politifact. There could be an appeal process if denied the label of "truth". Remember, since the rule would apply only to the big boys with lots of viewers/followers, the burden of appealing is not undue.

Scientific progress thrives on free statements and observations that appear false or even absurd but are claimed as plausible, and commonly are soon discredited. Any attempt to stifle errors would, ignoring any political consequences, lead to technological stagnation.

Science and politics are different, yes, though the principle holds: I pre-emptively answer my critic.

Sadly, scientific publications are not widely read. They would be exempt. However, if a news outlet with lots of viewers referred to an exempt scientific publication improperly, they would run the risk of whatever penalty is determined by a court of law.

I was a Wikipedia administrator for a while, and I noticed that lies weren't a big problem. They were easily dealt with. The most frequent and insidious problems, which required an enormous amount of energy to be resolved, were when some facts were given undue weight at the expense of others.

You know? You never know.

Indeed, I have noted that several organisations that report on 'false information' mark works poorly for a perceived imbalance, even if they contain no objectively false material. Such abuses are infinitely too easy. It is unreasonable to insist all authors adopt a 'neutral point of view', that would surely be false, but rather to let the individual discern it from any and all available sources.

And what is "truth"? Is truth unchanging law?

“You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

It will only happen if people care about the truth. As long as people prefer whatever supports their views over the truth, this isn't going to be a fruitful exercise

Ogion, isn't there a natural morality that arises from absolute truth?
Zmaj, thanks for the add. It's nice to hear that absolute truths can exist even in controversial topics.

I have no problem with people weighing facts differently (persuasive arguments). Hell, that's what lawyers do all the time to win a case. It'd be nice if persuasion was clearly distinguished from neutral reporting of facts, but at this point, I'm willing to settle for absolute truths in the hope that they lead to inexorable conclusions of good public policy.

Absolute truth... I wonder if any of you have seen this little gem: http://bit.ly/2mYbE29

that vid pretty much sums it up. oh well, let's enjoy the journey anyway.

Lol now that's optimism.

"I was a Wikipedia administrator for a while, and I noticed that lies weren't a big problem. They were easily dealt with."

That's a pretty strong sampling bias, though--volunteer editors by and large care about accurate and verifiable information. Naturally the problems that persist (as opposed to fake-info trolls that get repelled by the ingroup) will stem from exploiting accurate and verifiable information to tell a skewed narrative.

Other groups may not be so resistant to outright bullshit. Consider the absurdly high percentage of Republicans who, in numerous independent polls, doubted Obama's citizenship or his religion or both. A lot of voters (at a first pass, older voters) get information by mailing lists, and a lot of those mailing lists are chock full of echo chamber nonsense.

I can't see how it would work in a practical way Hauta. It'd get too complicated to easily administer and enforce. For example you create at least two classes of "information dissemination " entities, those below the threshold, and those above. So any organisation could decide to hold itself just below the threshold and create a defacto second, third etc form of itself to continue growing in a way to "avoid the rules"
There's the obvious problems of who becomes the "arbiter of truth" and corruption, manipulation of that body.

I'd suggest a better way to deal with this is not on the "supply side" but on the "consumption side". In other words, work towards having the consumers of news take responsibility for analysis, critiquing, assessing of what they read and hear.. So better education of consumers.. And ensuring a competitive, multi sourced " market", lots of sources of information. Responsibility also lies with those who work in the information suppliers, eg journalists have professional associations that set commonly agreed ethical standards etc, they recognise excellence with professional awards.

MM, if FauxNews wants to break itself up into various entities to evade the threshold, that's a lot of pieces. Let's say the threshold were 25,000 followers/viewers, they'd have to create 20 channels per million viewers. Just try and getting cable to give you that many channels!

The arbiter of truth is appealable to the courts, much the way that administrative law works now. If you don't like how the Sosec Administration treated you, you can go through their process and when it's done, file a lawsuit in court.

Leaving it up to the demand side is a non-starter. The American people have no interest in doing the research to determine the truth. If they did, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. Instead, truth seeking needs to be done by professionals who have the time to do it.

Oh the irony; expressing unhappiness at 'disinformation' on a Diplomacy site.

Hauta, that last paragraph of yours is interesting, but take it a step further.
If I might paraphrase it.. You say the American population is largely intellectually lazy ..they won't put any serious effort into researching news sources..so your answer is not to give them the kick in the rear vestibule, shake them up and get them to put in the effort, but instead ..get a team of professionals to do the job for them....which only rewards the laziness..and if you take it a step further, well let's get a team of "approved experts" to do their thinking for them. Maybe set up a "drive through" that serves up prepared "approved thinking" with burgers & fries.
I'm suggesting it's a "cultural problem" and that it has to be attacked there.. Lazy news consumers shouldn't be encouraged to stay lazy.. So the culture has to be changed, and it's not just with news..include advertising, which is an even more dominant force than straight news..the distinction between news and advertising is increasingly blurred..infomercials etc
So I see it as a need to change a "cultural way of looking at, thinking about a range of influences"
If you want a "conspiracy theory" consider this.. A population that is largely intellectually lazy, doesn't have a culture of "critical thinking", enquiry etc is vulnerable to manipulation by a small, exclusive, well resourced "power elite". The irony is that there's a propaganda campaign to portray "elites" as "interfering liberals", whereas the recent evidence would suggest that the " elite groups" who are most successful at manipulation are extremely Conservative groups.