Peer review of news by citizens is already done in an informal way based on what they click on and share. Even when you point someone to Snopes showing a news article is false, people will respond saying Snopes is run by lefties and cannot be trusted. All you are suggesting is mob rule - the majority decides what is fake news.

That's the opposite of peer review. Peer review means experts in the field review articles, not the unwashed masses.

That would be a horrible system for news. It would put a huge amount of power in the hands of whoever is determined to be an expert.

And I don't see how it fulfills your previous claim:

> and doesn't require some nefarious government czar.

Because someone has to decide who the experts are. Peer review in science is performed by those who have a degree from a government accredited institution.