> What distinguishes involuntary falsehoods (e.g., misquoting someone unintentionally, or basing an argument on data later proved to be false) from lies in this case?
Nothing, so therefore you would have to do some homework. The news cycle might slow down a bit and I'm not sure that would be a bad thing.
> How would you go about enacting this?
A law would be a good start, possibly one with a bunch of criteria that would make 'false positives' a rarity so that at least initially the stick would be reserved for the most offending cases. If that works well then you can adjust to taste.
> I think this is a pipe dream, and not something that can (or should) be implemented.
That's ok, it is perfectly ok for different people to have different attitudes towards such ideas. But it's novel in the sense that it would create a strong incentive for the press to be cautious rather than jumping on every hype wagon that rolled along.
> And as for "one way street" voting... that's because voting is an ephemeral act, not a sustained one.
Yes, and I propose to change that.
> Your vote happened in the past and had an effect. You can't change your vote later and suddenly someone else is elected.
Not right now, but that too is not set in stone and in theory could be changed. A lot of the things we do and find normal are only that because they are how things are done today. That does not mean they can't be changed.
Nothing, so therefore you would have to do some homework. The news cycle might slow down a bit and I'm not sure that would be a bad thing.
> How would you go about enacting this?
A law would be a good start, possibly one with a bunch of criteria that would make 'false positives' a rarity so that at least initially the stick would be reserved for the most offending cases. If that works well then you can adjust to taste.
> I think this is a pipe dream, and not something that can (or should) be implemented.
That's ok, it is perfectly ok for different people to have different attitudes towards such ideas. But it's novel in the sense that it would create a strong incentive for the press to be cautious rather than jumping on every hype wagon that rolled along.
> And as for "one way street" voting... that's because voting is an ephemeral act, not a sustained one.
Yes, and I propose to change that.
> Your vote happened in the past and had an effect. You can't change your vote later and suddenly someone else is elected.
Not right now, but that too is not set in stone and in theory could be changed. A lot of the things we do and find normal are only that because they are how things are done today. That does not mean they can't be changed.