> One provision in particular—Section 24, which made it illegal to publish false information online that was deemed to be “grossly offensive,” “indecent,” or even merely an “annoyance”—has been especially ripe for abuse

I mean how is this surprising to anyone?

Grossly offensive is in the eye of the beholder

▲

hunterpayne 4 days ago | parent [-]

> Grossly offensive is in the eye of the beholder

Quite right. However, certain media outlets have knowingly published false information and when pushed on this they claim that those reports happened as part of the "opinion" part of their reporting. Before you get smug, your side does it too (as does mine). I'm am less concerned with blaming people than coming up with a mitigation of these issues.

So I think we need a 2 class system of reporting. A factual part where knowingly reporting false information has consequences. And an opinion part where it doesn't. Journalists would claim they already do this but here is the new policy. Reporting must constantly and clearly show to which class the report belongs. So maybe a change in background color on websites, or a change in the frame color for videos. Something that make it visually and immediately clear to which class this reporting belongs. That way people can more accurately assess the level of credibility the reporting should have.

	▲	gxs 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		In a different time when different mindsets prevailed, the US government handled this about as well as you could hope The Fairness Doctrine is irrelevant today because of the way news is published/broadcast, but was effective in my humble opinion From Wikipedia: “ The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.” And without getting too political, the beginning of a lot of our media woes in terms of news correlates nicely with when the doctrine was revoked