[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

That's an interesting point. It feels like the bipartisan cynicism has reached the highest point that I can recall in my lifetime, and yet it looks like we're seeing huge increases in participation this go around as well. Where do we go from here? Is the turnout this year a blip and an aberration, or do we see an increased engagement with democratic institutions going forward?

It does feel as though there are fundamental issues with the governance system that are causing wide dissatisfaction and cynicism. Information asymmetries between those in power and the common people are less than they ever have been, and the disparity in wealth and influence is also huge right now. I'm hopeful about younger generations finding better ways, but I struggle at this time to see how the reconciliation is actually going to take place.

I am thinking it would have to start with substantive action, and a return to a society with more of a moral center .

The only possible scenario I can envision would require a Dem sweep, then it would take

- the will - an actual desire by the country to do something.
- the ability - it has to start with the Democrats having to get the trifecta so that laws can be introduced and passed
- the laws - to introduce legislation that attempts to stop dissemination of false and misleading information.
- the willingness to interpret and uphold the law - basically the Dems would have to add justices to the Supreme Court so that the the laws are upheld


Here is a study of how 15 countries are are attempting to limit false news. Interesting in the approaches and not all are democracies.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/fake-news/index.php

Excerpt

The countries included in this study are addressing the fake news problem through one or more of the following four approaches:

In the absence of legislation that expressly addresses the objectivity of news posted on social media, some of the surveyed countries apply relevant provisions of existing civil, criminal, administrative, and other laws regulating the media, elections, and anti-defamation (Canada, Japan, Nicaragua, Sweden, and the United Kingdom), even though these laws, enacted in the pre-internet era, do not always reflect current technological and telecommunications developments.

Others are choosing to enact new and more focused legislation that imposes sanctions on social media networks that spread false news, usually imposing fines and ordering the removal of information identified as false (China, Egypt, France, Germany, Israel, Malaysia, and Russia). In Malaysia and Egypt these provisions apply extraterritorially.

Another option reflected in the country surveys is to engage election authorities and digital platforms to secure a well-informed electorate, either by identifying and blocking fake news, providing fact-checking resources for the general public, or through the mass publication of “real” news during election season and beyond (Argentina, the UK, China, and Malaysia). Argentina, for example, is considering legislation that would create a Commission for the Verification of Fake News within the National Election Chamber. During national election campaigns, the Commission would recognize, label, and prevent the distribution of news considered “of doubtful credibility.” Both the UK and China have programs in place to systematically rebut fake news by publishing reliable information, while Malaysia provides a fact-checking portal.

Some of the countries are also addressing the issue in a more general way by educating citizens about the dangers of fake news (Sweden and Kenya). Sweden starts at a young age, having enlisted a famous cartoon character to teach children about the dangers of fake news through a cartoon strip that illustrates what happens to the bear’s super-strength when false rumors are circulated about him. The US Embassy in Kenya launched a media literacy campaign in 2018, initially aimed at the Kenya chapter of the Young African Leaders Initiative, with the specific goal of stopping the dissemination of fake news.

Among the countries surveyed, there is no common position regarding the definition of “fake news” and its scope. The UK government attempts to avoid use of the term altogether, instead using the words “disinformation” and “misinformation.” Countries with established anti-fake news laws have more elaborate terminology. Malaysian legislation defines fake news as “any news, information, data and reports, which is or are wholly or partly false, whether in the form of features, visuals or audio recordings or in any other form capable of suggesting words or ideas.” Russia passed a law penalizing the publication of fake news in March 2019, defining the term as “socially-significant false information distributed under the guise of truthful messages if they create a threat of endangering people’s lives, health, or property; create possibilities for mass violations of public order or public security; or may hinder the work of transportation and social infrastructure, credit institutions, lines of communications, industry, and energy enterprises.” China has made it a crime to “fabricate false information on [a] dangerous situation, epidemic, disaster or alert and disseminate such information via [an] information network or any other media while clearly knowing that it is fabricated, thereby seriously disturbing public order.” Relying on the 1881 Freedom of the Press Law, France has made it illegal to “disturb public peace through the publication, dissemination, or reproduction of fake news in bad faith.” The bad-faith publication, dissemination, or reproduction of forged or altered items, or items falsely attributed to third parties, is also prohibited.