Who defines lies and hate. Hint: is the the republicans and democrats who lie and spread hate the most. While the lies and hate are somewhat different neither side is willing to give up anything.

Also you will run into first amendment issues.

Yeah, I'm arguing for monumental shift in our entire society. Some things will have to change.

>Who defines lies and hate.

I would argue we need a much cheaper, more efficient court system, where a group of peers is gathered to examine evidence. In other words "society" does. They can also consider if the lie was deliberate or a mistake, leading to harsher penalties.

This sounds like a recipe for exacerbating climate change denialism. Let the truth be defined by your peers? I don't think so.

My understanding is that, that's how most science works. Experts come to a consensus.

Except that who did the analysis is part of the analysis, which allows you to select and trace based on qualifications that you think are important. This above proposal sounds like a bunch of random people off the street, which is not at all going to result in the same quality of analysis. If the proposal is to create a board of qualified information judges and a process for selecting those judges, I could get behind that.

You know their names right now. They are displayed in a banner on the TV.

The hate speech and insane theories from anonymous/unaccountable profiles underpin and bolster what you see on TV.

I rather enjoy seeing people furious that they cannot hold people accountable for some perceived sleights. Makes me happy, especially in these times, we should never give that up again. I don't see this as a problem, I see it as a feature.

There are cases where it can be bad, but I would have problems giving any examples. Wouldn't change the point anyway.

Many of those people post under their real name.

Like a security deposit. You could get it back a year later with a slight increase that doubles as a payment for the data they've harvested.