@Lindy @MichaelTalon The Fairness Doctrine should definitely be reinstated.

With one caveat: perspectives clearly demonstrated by the scientific community to be disinformation / factually incorrect - notably crackpot ideas like "flat earth" and "young earth creationism" - should not be protected by the Fairness Doctrine... in fact all coverage of such crackpot ideas should have to carry blatantly obvious disclaimers stating that current evidence does not support their claims, and why not.

@Lindy @MichaelTalon Warning labeling like that has been quite successful at reducing consumption of cigarettes and other harmful goods in many countries...

So I see no reason why it couldn't or shouldn't work just as well for reducing consumption of disinformation, pseudoscience, & verifiably-false lies.

The key would be assigning the responsibility for deciding what's covered to a real expert body. IDK, maybe a panel of eg 10000 scientists could vote on it, requiring 75%+ to flag as disinfo.

@IrelandTorin I'm glad it's not up to me to figure out the details.

@Lindy Fair enough :)

I, personally, wouldn't mind figuring out details for those sorts of decisions - and who knows, it might happen some day; I've got my sights set on a position like that.

@Lindy @MichaelTalon I mean, a panel that huge couldn't be a full-time thing, but it shouldn't have to be... because crackpot ideas only get covered in the media so much, and it's usually just a bunch of the same old ones circling around for years/decades.

Total time spent per scientist, I'd expect, would probably be somewhere on the order of a few working days a year - albeit with the hours scattered throughout the year. I don't think it'd cost that much.