How could the flood of false news be fought

After the attack ended, false claims that the Las Vegas massacre was the work of Islamic State terrorists or Donald Trump's leftist opponents flooded Facebook pages, YouTube research and news. Again, we saw how so-called <x0 false warning” can fuel chaos and foster hatred.

Like most false news, those false articles are protected by the First Amendment and international protection of free speech. Except when they cross specific red legal lines like those that prohibit slandering news stories are not illegal and our government has no power to prevent or censor them.

But the fact that false news is part of free speech does not annul the risk they pose for open debate, freedom of thought or democratic government. Increasing false news and erosion related to public confidence in common journalism present an imminent crisis for free expression.

Usually, free speech polling centres focus on defending the word opposed by attempts at oppression, but it also takes steps to strengthen open and rational debate that supports the value of free speech in our society and in our lives.

Supporting the free word should not privilege any inflexible notion of truth with the exception of others. But that does not mean that advocates of free speech should be indifferent to seeking truth or deliberately try to undermine the public's ability to distinguish between lies.

Both the First Amendment and international law define free speech that includes the right to receive and provide information. The power of free speech is inextricably linked to the possibility of hearing and believing, and convincing. False reports mean these very sources of power.

If public discussion is flooded so much with dezinformation that listeners cannot detect the signal from the noise, they will be distorted. The Autcrats know this well and thus control the flow of information. They cast out lies to mislead, confuse, and, after all, introduce a sense of vanity, which absorbs the will to complain, protest, or resist.

In social media, the problem is not control, it's chaos. The funlopant rhythm with which false information can spread can help protect the truth or correct the news as an impossible mission or an invitation for opposers to double the spread of fraud.

The problem of false news is now composed of social and political divisions that underestimate traditional ways in which truth usually prevails. Investigations, exposures and studies fail in a situation where a considerable part of the population does not believe in a wide range of resources perceived as politically or ideologically hostile, including sources that have traditionally imposed broad respect, if not universal.

The debate over confronting false news has focused on what governments, news media, social media platforms and civil society actors like fact-control groups can do. Each has an important role to play, but also needs to respect the sharp limits for their interventions.

Of course, no president should denigrate the legitimate news that he dislikes, as Donald Trump constantly does. But the misuse of Trump's authority reminds us only that there are good reasons that the Constitution prohibits the government from judging which news is true and which news is false. Google and Facebook, as private platforms, need to monitor their platforms to make sure that dangerous conspiracy theories don't spread virally, but if they overcheck those on their pages, they will create reactions to the free word.

Of course, the media should try to uphold professional and ethical standards, but only they cannot convince cynical readers to trust them. Similarly, those who believe that false news have distrust of fact - control offices trying to prove that stories are false.

After all, the power of false news is in the minds of viewers - news consumers. We need an equivalent of the news of the consumers of the Union of Honored Consumers that, starting in the 1930s, mobilized millions of people back by getting an approach to shopping information, or the latest attempt to empower individuals to take responsibility for their health by reading the labels, counting the steps, and testing for risk factors.

When there have been only a few sources to choose, buyers did not need Consumers' reports to solve their traits and shortcomings. But when buyers began to face overload of information, reliable referees were placed to help them choose between good and bad.

Over the past decades, news consumption was focused on newspapers, magazines, and television shows that had gone through some layers of editorial editing and checking facts. Most consumers had little need to educate themselves for the political trends of media owners, the modes of attributed quotas, journalism assistance protocols, the understanding of dates, or other indications of truth.

Now, with the spread of party media, the lowest barriers to access to public discourse, and the flooding of online information and cable news, consumers need new means to resolve elections and make informed decisions on where to invest their attention and confidence. The fight against false news will not depend on fostering confidence in specific sources of authority, but on the introduction of scepticism, curiosity and feeling of monitoring in consumers, who are the best obstacle against fraud traders.

The movement of consumer news must include several obstacles, based on the “Search for Rights and Responsibilities for Consumers” of PEN America. “Making false news: False news and the war for truth.” The movement should provide reliable information to help consumers weigh the credibility of various news sources.

It should include an arm of the survey to promote editorials, internet platforms and social media giants to be transparent about their decisions about what news is controlled and how. This move should advance news reading curriculums in schools and equip the next generation to sail into the informal ocean in which they were born.

It must distribute information in various areas and constantly try to avoid ideological partiality. It has to develop an investigative arm to expose, label and shame false news suppliers and their financial supporters. And this can ensure periodic rankings, and reporting on editorials and other branches to keep them accountable to their audience.

The movement should also mobilise the public to become a good news consumer by encouraging them to apply a critical look to news sources, to favour those who are reliable, prove the reports before sharing them in social media and to report mistakes when to see them.

Knowing false news as a threat to free speech cannot be a basis for justifying a cure in the form of a new government or corporate restrictions on the word ʹ that might end up being worse than disease.

Postscriptual beneficiaries and political opportunists can never rest in their efforts to infect global news information to serve their goals.

The best stand against the outbreak of false news is to educate consumers by building their own ability to defend themselves./Foreign Police