Would they really boot CNN?
CNN told us this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE
They were laughably wrong: https://popehat.com/2016/10/17/no-it-is-not-illegal-to-read-...
Maybe one can claim it wasn't an intentional lie, but this guy is someone who really should have known better. So if it wasn't an intentional lie, they were negligent. Not sure where that leaves us.
It would be great if an algorithm could fight this type of content, but it probably can't.
But we can probably start with sites that publish stories like "Rudy Giuliani SLAPPED A REPORTER WITH HIS DICK last Tuesday" and that might solve enough of this problem to call it a decent win.
Yes, you can completely filter them out figuring it's not worth the effort, but the problem is that's how you form bubbles to begin with.
Might have more luck boiling them down to verifiable facts and stripping all opinions (especially every explanation of "why X did Y" or "what X means").
I'm not really going for the whole slippery slope aspect, more I feel like I'm miscategorizing the problem.
Maybe the metadata on misinformation looks different from the real deal. How quickly does it spread, and through which people? No need to actually judge the content.
If there's no consensus on the "truthiness" then the default is benefit of the doubt that it's true.
I know we are all in IT, but not all problems are best solved by algorithms.