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.