Something of increasing imminent importance is tacking propaganda while keeping free speech. To do so I propose new labeling regulations, keeping free speech open while setting a new standard for "news" in order to not have a "Propaganda" notice at all times.
What this would entail is principal citations in any given "News release" requiring the attachment of a full court transcript, full contextual pieces and ban on mid sentence edits on all media and news clips across the board without instant, live screen disclose of the cut.
The same would apply to ""Fact Checkers" It has been increasingly obvious they are not checking anything, rather doing a ""non-contextual consecutive words check" as demonstrated below;
I encourage everyone to READ this """FACT CHECK"" Notice the way it's worded;
"There is no evidence there a vaccine correlation.... A family member "suspects" without evidence"
""New York-based lawyer Murray Richman, who has represented DMX for decades, confirmed to USA TODAY DMX did not receive the COVID-19 vaccine [a week before] his cardiac arrest, as the article claims. He [wasn't sure if DMX received the vaccine before that period;] New York residents 50 and older were eligible beginning March 22. https://www.usatoday.com/.../fact-check-no.../7173058002/ Cited April 21st 2021" ...
"PolitiFact could not verify the accuracy of the quotes or whether DMX was recently vaccinated before he died, as the headline claimed. MTO News did not respond to a request for comment, and our inquiries to DMX’s lawyer and manager also went unanswered. https://www.poynter.org/.../fact-checking-unproven.../ cited April 21st 2021)"
As you can see, these ""fact checking"" institutions failed the most basic standard of journalism, to simply ask when DMX got the vaccine.
This is just one example of bias reporting propaganda where no context, relevant information or facts are weighted equally. I would like to introduce a voluntary rebuttal committee across isles with a voluntary web browser download by which people could submit pieces to and reviews by popularity in rebuttal with such appearing in a side bar. Upon 100 inquiries the article would have a disclosure "Potential Propaganda" and so with public accountability.
Furthermore and inversely I would strengthen the penalty for SLAPP lawsuits to prevent intimidation of independent people and journalists removing rebuttal court fees in defamation and libel suits against people and journalist and introduce a day rate requirement pay in escrow by the defendant by which if case is lost or thrown out, the payout would be issued to person, YouTuber or otherwise.
In addition, any countersuits regarding such filed by person or journalist would have fees waved.
Finally, should any company censor alternative view points which potential personal knowledge thereof later cause hard, All parties whom may have approved censorship, suppression, shadow banning or algorithm manipulation divergent to the favorability of the biggest platform starts would be subject to criminal charges as complicit.
For example, a censorship suppression or otherwise of vaccine concerns contrary to mainstream narrative that may later cause a death, would charge relevant executives top down for involuntary manslaughter minimum to the fullest extent of the law.
This would prevent corporate executives to succumb to performative wokeness and polarizing political pandering in the name of contemporary histrionics or any expectation to do weighing in the risk. Should any executive have known ok'ed overtly or covertly such censorship opened to public disclosure they would be charged top down to the highest person whom knew, directed or turned blind eye thereof.