Roger, I think you have a very interesting point, but I don't quite agree with you.
I like your use of "accountable to standards of accuracy and fairness". I think that is a big problem in today's society, where people read something like Wikipedia and assume it's "fact" and that it's true. In reality, it's mostly fact and mostly true, but not quite fully. But look at the amount of content there that IS fact and that IS true. It is definitely a much larger and better source of information than any one entity or publication.
So why is Wikipedia so great? Because it's not ENCUMBERED by so-called standards. People can post just about anything they want, quickly and conveniently, with no burden of approvals or delays until it's posted. And as a result, you get a LOT of content.
So what of this information that's NOT true or accurate? Surely it's there, but it's relatively uncommon and VERY easy to spot.
I first realized this concept of easy to spot when I was buying a rather expensive item on ebay from a "spotty" seller ( credible opinion.
Then it hit me. Evaluating a statement is RECURSIVE. It means that you see content, and you have to evaluate whether or not it's credible. And that's hard for people that don't understand recursion. I think this problem stems from having TOO MUCH accountability in traditional media. That is, there's a lot of red tape to put content up on tv or a newspaper, so viewers/readers can just take it as fact without really validating the author.
Which is terrible. The author is NOT always right. Look at just about any highly technical story published in a non-scientific medium (ie, a newspaper). The author essentially gets a story from a PR firm, and they call up a few industry reps and write down what they say. TERRIBLE. I could probably google for 30 seconds and come up with a hundred examples.
Look at Letterman or Leno, Conan, Bill Maher. They state untrue content on a daily basis, with no lashback. And there is an entire market based around consuming this content that's obviously intended to be consumed as "false". Why should they not be sued by the people they make fun of? Because they "warn" their audience that everything they say is blatantly untrue. Is having this type of content available on television detrimental to society somehow?
Of course not. The only possible harm in publishing false content is when you say "this content is absolutely correct and I verify it as a professional." That's the difference between communication about "who's going out with who" with your friends, and publishing facts. In the former, it's implied that what you say is just your opinion and probably isn't true, and that's why nobody takes it seriously. With something like blogs, you obviously get a few idiots getting upset by taking it too seriously, but there's a limit on the potential harm. If you post something blatantly untrue on your blog, it's just too easy to disprove it, much like a poorly written ebay transaction rating. Where there's no credibility, there's no real potential for harm.
Slander and Libel laws really have mo place in the "blogosphere". Blogs are people chatting, not authors trying to publish official content, or "facts". Or is it? What about the official Google Blog? That is legitimate content, but it's INTENDED to be, and it's STATED as fact, backed by the credibility of Google, being hosted by google.com. So you have two cases, one on a bad ebay user rating, and one of an official Fact-board. Both are present and written on the internet, but neither one can create any harm. So why do we need a law here?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by EatingSteak.
Re: Reponse to
Roger, I think you have a very interesting point, but I don't quite agree with you.
I like your use of "accountable to standards of accuracy and fairness". I think that is a big problem in today's society, where people read something like Wikipedia and assume it's "fact" and that it's true. In reality, it's mostly fact and mostly true, but not quite fully. But look at the amount of content there that IS fact and that IS true. It is definitely a much larger and better source of information than any one entity or publication.
So why is Wikipedia so great? Because it's not ENCUMBERED by so-called standards. People can post just about anything they want, quickly and conveniently, with no burden of approvals or delays until it's posted. And as a result, you get a LOT of content.
So what of this information that's NOT true or accurate? Surely it's there, but it's relatively uncommon and VERY easy to spot.
I first realized this concept of easy to spot when I was buying a rather expensive item on ebay from a "spotty" seller ( credible opinion.
Then it hit me. Evaluating a statement is RECURSIVE. It means that you see content, and you have to evaluate whether or not it's credible. And that's hard for people that don't understand recursion. I think this problem stems from having TOO MUCH accountability in traditional media. That is, there's a lot of red tape to put content up on tv or a newspaper, so viewers/readers can just take it as fact without really validating the author.
Which is terrible. The author is NOT always right. Look at just about any highly technical story published in a non-scientific medium (ie, a newspaper). The author essentially gets a story from a PR firm, and they call up a few industry reps and write down what they say. TERRIBLE. I could probably google for 30 seconds and come up with a hundred examples.
Look at Letterman or Leno, Conan, Bill Maher. They state untrue content on a daily basis, with no lashback. And there is an entire market based around consuming this content that's obviously intended to be consumed as "false". Why should they not be sued by the people they make fun of? Because they "warn" their audience that everything they say is blatantly untrue. Is having this type of content available on television detrimental to society somehow?
Of course not. The only possible harm in publishing false content is when you say "this content is absolutely correct and I verify it as a professional." That's the difference between communication about "who's going out with who" with your friends, and publishing facts. In the former, it's implied that what you say is just your opinion and probably isn't true, and that's why nobody takes it seriously. With something like blogs, you obviously get a few idiots getting upset by taking it too seriously, but there's a limit on the potential harm. If you post something blatantly untrue on your blog, it's just too easy to disprove it, much like a poorly written ebay transaction rating. Where there's no credibility, there's no real potential for harm.
Slander and Libel laws really have mo place in the "blogosphere". Blogs are people chatting, not authors trying to publish official content, or "facts". Or is it? What about the official Google Blog? That is legitimate content, but it's INTENDED to be, and it's STATED as fact, backed by the credibility of Google, being hosted by google.com. So you have two cases, one on a bad ebay user rating, and one of an official Fact-board. Both are present and written on the internet, but neither one can create any harm. So why do we need a law here?