NATION

PASSWORD

[Last Call] Combating Disinformation in Society

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Cessarea
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1293
Founded: Jul 02, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Cessarea » Sun Sep 17, 2023 10:41 pm

Mesogiria wrote:
Cessarea wrote:I believe a correction is in order. Would the following address your concerns?

3.
IV. The information distributed by FACT must present the most accurate depiction of scientific and academic consensus, as well as any evidence-based opposition it may come to face, on any given topic. FACT shall ensure that a variety of sources are taken into account, and that differing versions of one topic are presented with neutrality, weighted by the preponderance of reliable, scientific evidence on the side of any given topic.

I have not run this by the author yet, but I would like to preliminarily know if this would be a sufficient replacement.

If you need an example of what I'm going for, think of Wikipedia's approach to neutral point of view on scientific topics. They take into account the preponderance of evidence - all theories deserve respect, but you don't have to present them all as if they're the same, and as if they have the same scientific value. Some theories just have better premises and better evidence that lead to better and more applicable conclusions. If a theory has one, old and faulty scientific paper to back it up but another one has dozens of meticulously done and thoroughly reproduced studies, sure, it can presented, we can acknowledge the existence of that fringe theory, but it has to be recognised that it is - in fact - a fringe theory.


Well, to be honest, no, it doesn't satisfy me, because quite apart from my fundamental objection to equipping the World Assembly with a machine for deciding what free people are allowed to say,

Before addressing the rest, this is not what the proposal does. FACT has no judicial power, and there is no mandate that obligates member nations to use its information as legal evidence (although it would likely be prudent for them to do so). The third draft explicitly added section II to make that sufficiently clear.
Mesogiria wrote:this proposed alteration remarks the entire operational mission of FACT. Instead of the relatively straightforward job saying what is provably true, FACT now is tasked to report on all consensus and shifting ground and debate on the unlimited topics into which it may inquire, which across the length and breadth of the WA will be quite vast indeed. It raises all sorts of questions about what sources are trusted and what aren't, how FACT will go about ascertaining the consensus when more than one consensus at a national or international level exists, or whether it will be empowered to conduct original research to resolve disputes. I struggle even to imagine the herculean task of synthesizing the consensus of all scientists in tens of thousands of nations at any given time, let alone condensing it into a useful form for propagandizing. An arbiter of truth might be useful for laying down facts and falsehoods, if repugnantly authoritarian, but a regurgitator of the texts of millions of science journals accomplishes nothing that can't be done with an interlibrary loan program or, as you say, an online encyclopedia.

A vast WA bureaucracy for linking people to wikipedia pages is hardly going to end the practice of telling lies. My experience with the attitudes and behaviors of wikipedia editors certainly do not fill me confidence by way of comparison.

I do not agree with your approach that this is not worth the effort. Disinformation and its usual consequence, misinformation, are actively harmful to democratic member nations of the WA, and the effect of these two phenomena do not restrict themselves solely to one country or another, because of globalisation. But I will say that, perhaps, this does make FACT a bit too wide-reaching to be effective. I could remove the part about presenting a neutral point of view and instead make a FACT a more objective fact-checking agency, akin to Snopes. Its mission would, then, be to merely verify public discourse and emit fact-checking bulletins on certain topics of public interest and information surrounding them. It would be a much more toothless organisation, but perhaps a more effective one.
Last edited by Cessarea on Sun Sep 17, 2023 10:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Completely undecided on everything I guess

User avatar
Cessarea
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1293
Founded: Jul 02, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Cessarea » Mon Oct 16, 2023 10:50 am

We missed the submission date, but this may be submitted some time in the future.

Suggestions and comments are very much welcomed.
Completely undecided on everything I guess

User avatar
Makko Oko
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1045
Founded: Jan 20, 2018
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Makko Oko » Tue Oct 17, 2023 10:32 am

No individual shall be held criminally responsible for the spread of misinformation


"His Emperor's Government must sadly vote against this proposal for the matter of prohibiting any crimes to be charged against those whom spread misinformation. While understanding that repeated cases of misinformation may be persecuted, our government does not feel it is in our best interests. This is not combating it, this would be aiding it." - Minister of Justice Sara Mauer
OBC Current News: First-Ever Anti-Terrorism Act Enacted | Emperor launches plans to expand trade | Danika Hicks Case: NOT GUILTY VERDICT! Court rules 3-2
Information:
IIWiki Factbooks
NS Factbooks

NOTE: This nation does not reflect my real beliefs in any way, shape or form

User avatar
Cessarea
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1293
Founded: Jul 02, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Cessarea » Tue Oct 17, 2023 10:54 am

Makko Oko wrote:
No individual shall be held criminally responsible for the spread of misinformation


"His Emperor's Government must sadly vote against this proposal for the matter of prohibiting any crimes to be charged against those whom spread misinformation. While understanding that repeated cases of misinformation may be persecuted, our government does not feel it is in our best interests. This is not combating it, this would be aiding it." - Minister of Justice Sara Mauer

Minister Feathers-of-Burgundy responded from his levitating seat:
"Sharing anything that you believe to be true but is in fact false is a type of misinformation, Minister. We believe it is against the interests of member nations to throw into jail those who simply do not know any better or have simply been tricked by those with lesser intentions. Ignorance should not be a crime."
Completely undecided on everything I guess

User avatar
Cessarea
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1293
Founded: Jul 02, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Cessarea » Sat Mar 16, 2024 6:17 am

I would like to note that I now intend to publish this proposal as an author, and with Orwell Society as its co-author. Orwell Society has become unreachable over the last few months, so I've decided upon this course of action so as to not waste the efforts spent in this text. I've also been previously asked by the author to assume that role and, although initially reluctant, I believe the author's disappearance merits it. I've posted evidence of authorisation in the WA Discord, for the sake of not being accused of blatant plagiarism. Furthermore, I've personally spent quite a bit of effort writing for this proposal, to a point that I feel comfortable assuming the title of author for the goal of getting this into the WA voting floor.

If Orwell Society comes back and wishes to do something else with this, he is within his right to do so, and I'd be happy to see him back into activity in the forums. For transparency, I've sent him a message one day ago, which has gone unresponded. If that changes, I will post about it here.

I don't think I'll be requesting a thread ownership change, due to the author's unresponsiveness, but I'll nonetheless be operating here. Drafting is reopened - new drafts will be posted by me in duly-indicated posts. Current draft is the one in the OP of this thread. Suggestions are more than welcome.
Completely undecided on everything I guess

User avatar
The Overmind
Diplomat
 
Posts: 747
Founded: Dec 12, 2022
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby The Overmind » Sat Mar 16, 2024 2:49 pm

Cessarea wrote:
Makko Oko wrote:
No individual shall be held criminally responsible for the spread of misinformation


"His Emperor's Government must sadly vote against this proposal for the matter of prohibiting any crimes to be charged against those whom spread misinformation. While understanding that repeated cases of misinformation may be persecuted, our government does not feel it is in our best interests. This is not combating it, this would be aiding it." - Minister of Justice Sara Mauer

Minister Feathers-of-Burgundy responded from his levitating seat:
"Sharing anything that you believe to be true but is in fact false is a type of misinformation, Minister. We believe it is against the interests of member nations to throw into jail those who simply do not know any better or have simply been tricked by those with lesser intentions. Ignorance should not be a crime."


Your argument here only concerns the unwitting spread of disinformation, and I believe that should be reflected in the proposal text. There should not be a broad, international, prohibition on finding the intentional spread of disinformation criminally liable.
Free Palestine

Trans men are men | Trans women are women | Sex is non-binary
Assigned sex isn't biological sex | Trans rights are human rights


Neuroscientist | Formerly Heavens Reach | He/Him/His

User avatar
Cessarea
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1293
Founded: Jul 02, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Cessarea » Sun Mar 17, 2024 6:45 pm

The Overmind wrote:
Cessarea wrote:Minister Feathers-of-Burgundy responded from his levitating seat:
"Sharing anything that you believe to be true but is in fact false is a type of misinformation, Minister. We believe it is against the interests of member nations to throw into jail those who simply do not know any better or have simply been tricked by those with lesser intentions. Ignorance should not be a crime."


Your argument here only concerns the unwitting spread of disinformation, and I believe that should be reflected in the proposal text. There should not be a broad, international, prohibition on finding the intentional spread of disinformation criminally liable.

Unwittingly spread disinformation is, I believe, characterised as misinformation, per the definition provided by article 2. The ban on criminalising misinformation uses misinformation as it is defined for the purposes of the proposal, meaning that it is essentially unintentional disinformation. I may remove this ban if consensus serms to be against it, though, it was mostly placed there because it seemed sensible, to me, to protect the right of individuals to... make mistakes, so to speak. It seems excessive to potentially arrest someone for not being 100% dilligent in their research of whattsapp links to mostly fake stories.
Completely undecided on everything I guess

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2851
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Sun Mar 17, 2024 10:57 pm

Cessarea wrote:
The Overmind wrote:
Your argument here only concerns the unwitting spread of disinformation, and I believe that should be reflected in the proposal text. There should not be a broad, international, prohibition on finding the intentional spread of disinformation criminally liable.

Unwittingly spread disinformation is, I believe, characterised as misinformation, per the definition provided by article 2. The ban on criminalising misinformation uses misinformation as it is defined for the purposes of the proposal, meaning that it is essentially unintentional disinformation. I may remove this ban if consensus serms to be against it, though, it was mostly placed there because it seemed sensible, to me, to protect the right of individuals to... make mistakes, so to speak. It seems excessive to potentially arrest someone for not being 100% dilligent in their research of whattsapp links to mostly fake stories.

"Ambassador, we would heavily encourage your mission to make this clearer in Section 2.ii, such as by using a term different to 'misinformation'; otherwise it is prone to misinterpretation both by voters and member nations intending to comply. We would also suggest amendments to the definition itself to clarify what 'intent' is referring to; perhaps, 'save for the sole and vital fact that it is spread without the understanding that it is false', and removing 'has no malice and' in the next sentence. We hope that these changes would effectively address not only the concerns of the Overmind, but also those of other missions who may end up with similar concerns."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Simone Republic
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1807
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Simone Republic » Mon Mar 18, 2024 4:39 am

IC

"Other than the complete trampling of free speech through an organization called FACT? No dice," says an ursine assistant.
All posts OOC. (He/him). I don't speak for TNP. IC the "white bear" (it) is for jokes only.

User avatar
Cessarea
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1293
Founded: Jul 02, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Cessarea » Tue Mar 19, 2024 12:58 pm

Simone Republic wrote:IC

"Other than the complete trampling of free speech through an organization called FACT? No dice," says an ursine assistant.

"The Protocol is unaware of any instructions left behind by hibernating Cessarean authorities that would indicate such intent within this proposal." Said the bright light, atop its marble pedestal, representing the artificial intelligence responsible for Cessarean Foreign Affairs, one of the many Protocols.

"FACT appears to be a largely harmless entity with minimal legal authority. They have no way to enforce their views on any individual or collective. Furthermore, criminalising harmful disinformation is already a common practice in several human democracies, and has been noted as such as early as 21st century Earth, in a primitive and indirect manner, of course. The Protocol notes that this provision is to be enforced by each member nation, per what is written in the proposal, not FACT."

The spokes...thing for the Protocol for Foreign Affairs paused, changed slightly in hue and colour, then turned itself towards another Delegate:

The Ice States wrote:
Cessarea wrote:Unwittingly spread disinformation is, I believe, characterised as misinformation, per the definition provided by article 2. The ban on criminalising misinformation uses misinformation as it is defined for the purposes of the proposal, meaning that it is essentially unintentional disinformation. I may remove this ban if consensus serms to be against it, though, it was mostly placed there because it seemed sensible, to me, to protect the right of individuals to... make mistakes, so to speak. It seems excessive to potentially arrest someone for not being 100% dilligent in their research of whattsapp links to mostly fake stories.

"Ambassador, we would heavily encourage your mission to make this clearer in Section 2.ii, such as by using a term different to 'misinformation'; otherwise it is prone to misinterpretation both by voters and member nations intending to comply. We would also suggest amendments to the definition itself to clarify what 'intent' is referring to; perhaps, 'save for the sole and vital fact that it is spread without the understanding that it is false', and removing 'has no malice and' in the next sentence. We hope that these changes would effectively address not only the concerns of the Overmind, but also those of other missions who may end up with similar concerns."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

"Direct suggestions made by Robert Desak and the Ice States mission have been acknowledged and will be added to the draft. The Protocol will correct itself by stating that, per the current draft of the proposal, disinformation is the spread of false narratives with intent - the agent knows of the falsehood of its assertions and nevertheless continues spreading them. Misinformation describes the unwitting spread of these narratives.

A verification of the Protocol's algorithms is underway to determine our integrity. We apologise for this."
Last edited by Cessarea on Tue Mar 19, 2024 1:14 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Completely undecided on everything I guess

User avatar
Cessarea
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1293
Founded: Jul 02, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Draft Four & Change of Authorship

Postby Cessarea » Sun Mar 31, 2024 5:57 pm

Orwell Society has officially authorised me to become the author for this resolution, with him as its rightful co-author. The fourth draft is below, containing changes to article 2. I've found the definitions for dis and misinformation to be distinct and understandable, but I welcome critique on that regard - the definitions have to be crystal-clear, as they serve as the crux to the entire proposal. Furthermore, I'd like to ask if forbidding criminal liability for misinformation is the correct move here - I judged it to be necessary for the protection of individual (specifically physical person's) rights and securities. A right to make mistakes, as I've said earlier. I do also welcome contrary opinions on that matter.

Further opinions are welcome as well. I urge people who have made critiques in the long past to post them again; I have had a difficult time parsing through some of them.

Combating Disinformation in Society

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Cessarea
Co-author: The Orwell Society

The World Assembly,

Discontent at the amount of disinformation on a variety of important topics that some member state's societies produce and distribute on a daily basis;

Knowing that said disinformation can be very harmful to society if believed to be true by a large part of the populace;

Determined to stop the spreading of injurious lies with the power of international law from this very Assembly.

Hereby enacts, in compliance with and subject to the provisions and mandates established by extant World Assembly law, the following:

  1. For the purposes of this resolution, "disinformation" is defined as the distribution of claims or information that is manipulated or fabricated, entirely or partially fictional, or taken out of context for the purpose of deceiving its target - often the general public - by introducing false narratives into the public discourse, with the intention of agitating for violence or political action/support, usually in disfavour of a protected group or governmental effort. Disinformation must be:
    1. a statement made by a person, organization, or group of people; that is
    2. presented with the intention of being believed to be a true fact or a valid speculation or theory;
    3. with the knowledge, from the person/people who made the statement, that the statement is factually untrue; and is
    4. stated with a purposeful and reckless disregard for the statement's falsity; and
    5. is likely to cause harm to individuals, and/or
    6. is intended to harm the reputation and/or wellbeing of any persons, social group, organization, or nation.
  2. Concomitantly, "misinformation" is defined similarly to disinformation, save for the sole and vital fact that it is spread without the understanding that it is false. The agent of misinformation has no intent to deceive or misguide and may earnestly believe that which they introduce into the public discourse. Agents that spread misinformation are - usually - informed by sources of disinformation. Due to its nature as a consequence of malicious acts, it is hereby established that:
    1. No individual shall be held criminally responsible for the spread of misinformation;
    2. Civil liability of an individual for misinformation is authorised, within the legislative bounds established by the World Assembly in regard to Civil Rights and Freedom of Expression;
    3. Misinformation presented by organizations, public or private, for-profit or not, from which a higher level of scrutiny and fact-checking is expected, is encouraged to be dealt with administratively and civilly, without criminal charges being levied against them.
  3. The establishment of the Forthright Association for Circulating Truth (shortened to FACT) to provide each memberstate with a force actively fighting against disinformation and misinformation alike.
    1. FACT will monitor leading sources of false, manipulated, fabricated, fictional, unreliable, or misleading information.
    2. FACT shall not be responsible for denouncing or persecuting agents of disinformation, being tasked exclusively with the spread of truth and diligent research.
    3. FACT will not interfere in anything directly relating to or affecting one's religious beliefs, including that in which a person/peoples believe to be true, but excluding that in which is already scientifically or historically established. FACT will nevertheless advocate against calls for violence in disfavour of individuals, or groups thereof, regardless of belief.
    4. FACT will locate the sources of the disinformation and launch campaigns to combat it and provide the populace with proven, reliable facts backed by actual research and science.
    5. The disinformation handled by FACT will be on a variety of topics, including but not limited to: physical, emotional, and mental health; history; and science and technology.
    6. The information distributed by FACT must be proven fact, either by scientific, historical, or general research from proven, reliable sources. FACT shall ensure that a variety of sources are taken into account, and that differing versions of one topic are presented with neutrality, weighted by the preponderance of reliable, scientific evidence on the side of any given topic.
    7. FACT will distribute its research independently, by all means it deems reasonable, however individual member nation's governments can choose to specifically request and accommodate FACT within their nation. The information may be in any form each individual member nation's government pleases, whether it be by book, internet article, pamphlet, advertising campaign, television program, etc., as long as it is an efficient and effective method of spreading the information.
  4. The criminalization of the deliberate, repeat spreading of harmful disinformation by a person, organization, or group of people.
    1. Punishment of an individual's violation of this ban will be decided upon by the individual member state's government;
    2. The criteria of knowledge and reckless disregard established by article 1, paragraph b and c, must be proven materially. Malicious intent must be established beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal liability;
    3. A threshold for minimum legal relevance for criminal liability is furthermore mandated. Statements that attend to the essential qualities of disinformation as established by article 1 must be further proven to have had significant impact within the proper context of the crime - local, regional, or national. Civil liability is unaffected by this requirement.

Hoping that these measures may combat the spread of harmful disinformation for the betterment of all member states' societies.
Completely undecided on everything I guess

User avatar
Fachumonn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1525
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Fachumonn » Sun Mar 31, 2024 6:01 pm

Cessarea wrote:-snip-

I don't know the rules, but you may now be able to ask for OP change.
GA Authorship Leaderboard | Guide to Campaigning | Other Resources

-11th Delegate of LSC. (May 31 2021-October 16 2022, June 9 2023-August 21 2023, November 1 2023-)

WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His| RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent |

User avatar
Cessarea
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1293
Founded: Jul 02, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Cessarea » Sun Mar 31, 2024 6:03 pm

Fachumonn wrote:
Cessarea wrote:-snip-

I don't know the rules, but you may now be able to ask for OP change.


Thanks, and I have indeed requested an OP change before posting the fourth draft. But that front is a tad bit slow, since no staff are currently online. What can I say, I post on the late hours :p
Completely undecided on everything I guess

User avatar
The Orwell Society
Minister
 
Posts: 2241
Founded: Apr 16, 2022
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby The Orwell Society » Mon Apr 01, 2024 11:04 am

I'm glad to see this being worked on! I've more or less quit NS for personal reasons (for now), so I'm glad I got bored and logged in to see that Cessarea wanted to continue on this.
The Orwell Society
Straight Male | Political Alignment: Centrist leaning conservative | NSGP Alignment: Independent | Proud Wellspringer, join The Wellspring today!

A vision without action is just a daydream

User avatar
RemiorKami
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 100
Founded: May 13, 2021
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby RemiorKami » Mon Apr 01, 2024 12:16 pm

This has been officially transferred, meaning the OP may be updated.
Main Puppet of Fachumonn.

Used for lots of purposes.

User avatar
Cessarea
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1293
Founded: Jul 02, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Cessarea » Tue Apr 02, 2024 11:40 am

OP's been updated. I'm giving this one week of drafting before placing it in last call again.

EDIT: I'm probably going to switch the strength of the proposal to mild at some point, but I'll wait until the drafting process is completed. Currently, FACT has no real power to force anything upon any nation, and the legal demands made to member-nations don't seem to justify - in my mind - a "significant" classification. I'm open to feedback on that, as always.
Last edited by Cessarea on Tue Apr 02, 2024 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Completely undecided on everything I guess

User avatar
Mesogiria
Diplomat
 
Posts: 857
Founded: Dec 03, 2009
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Mesogiria » Tue Apr 02, 2024 12:37 pm

I remain opposed to this wretchedly disgusting idea, of course, but I feel like maybe I have misunderstood this particular part:

2(II) Civil liability of an individual for misinformation is authorised, within the legislative bounds established by the World Assembly in regard to Civil Rights and Freedom of Expression;

Authorized for who? Who is it that is meant to be able to sue a person who repeats an untrue statement in the belief that it is true? I would assume that, if I inadvertently make an untrue statement about an individual person, they would have cause against me, but if my statement is about a class of persons or a nationality, who gets to sue me? Any of them? All of them? The government of a foreign state? Who?

User avatar
Cessarea
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1293
Founded: Jul 02, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Cessarea » Tue Apr 02, 2024 12:58 pm

Mesogiria wrote:I remain opposed to this wretchedly disgusting idea, of course, but I feel like maybe I have misunderstood this particular part:

2(II) Civil liability of an individual for misinformation is authorised, within the legislative bounds established by the World Assembly in regard to Civil Rights and Freedom of Expression;

Authorized for who? Who is it that is meant to be able to sue a person who repeats an untrue statement in the belief that it is true? I would assume that, if I inadvertently make an untrue statement about an individual person, they would have cause against me, but if my statement is about a class of persons or a nationality, who gets to sue me? Any of them? All of them? The government of a foreign state? Who?

Article 2, item II, is solely a "I want to make it clear that this is not prohibited" item. This is included as a means to assure nations that they can still hold someone responsible for spreading misinformation in a civil capacity. This does not mandate them to do so. Nor does it specifically say how that liability is manifested, as you have questioned: that is up to individual member-nations.

Furthermore, I frankly fail to understand your description of this as a "wretchedly disgusting idea". Are people merely assuming FACT is a legally coercive agency due to name alone? This is a purely secondary institution meant to aid public discourse, in ways that private entities of real life current democracies already do in a daily basis. If you wish to contribute, elaborate.
Completely undecided on everything I guess

User avatar
Mesogiria
Diplomat
 
Posts: 857
Founded: Dec 03, 2009
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Mesogiria » Tue Apr 02, 2024 6:20 pm

Cessarea wrote:Article 2, item II, is solely a "I want to make it clear that this is not prohibited" item. This is included as a means to assure nations that they can still hold someone responsible for spreading misinformation in a civil capacity. This does not mandate them to do so. Nor does it specifically say how that liability is manifested, as you have questioned: that is up to individual member-nations.


I do not think it is at all clear that this clause merely allows member states to enact such laws, as the resolution states that civil liability is authorized without reference to member states, only the boundaries of WA legislation.

"Taking a cookie from this jar is authorized" is not at all the same thing as saying "Member states may, subject to their own laws and discretion, permit or not permit the taking of a cookie from this jar."

If the intent is to allow member states to optionally establish civil liability for something, you would need to phrase it as such.

Furthermore, I frankly fail to understand your description of this as a "wretchedly disgusting idea". Are people merely assuming FACT is a legally coercive agency due to name alone? This is a purely secondary institution meant to aid public discourse, in ways that private entities of real life current democracies already do in a daily basis. If you wish to contribute, elaborate.


I don't see how it matters if FACT not directly persecuting people the actual effect of its reports will be to establish that people are undertaking criminal acts as defined by this legislation.

If you make it a crime to tell certain kinds of lies, and create an entity charged with monitoring people it thinks are lying and to issue reports about what it decides is the truth, then people absolutely will be prosecuted as a consequence of the reports issued by that entity. To pretend otherwise is absurd.

User avatar
Cessarea
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1293
Founded: Jul 02, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Cessarea » Tue Apr 02, 2024 6:46 pm

Mesogiria wrote:
Cessarea wrote:Article 2, item II, is solely a "I want to make it clear that this is not prohibited" item. This is included as a means to assure nations that they can still hold someone responsible for spreading misinformation in a civil capacity. This does not mandate them to do so. Nor does it specifically say how that liability is manifested, as you have questioned: that is up to individual member-nations.


I do not think it is at all clear that this clause merely allows member states to enact such laws, as the resolution states that civil liability is authorized without reference to member states, only the boundaries of WA legislation.

"Taking a cookie from this jar is authorized" is not at all the same thing as saying "Member states may, subject to their own laws and discretion, permit or not permit the taking of a cookie from this jar."

If the intent is to allow member states to optionally establish civil liability for something, you would need to phrase it as such.

I agree. 2, II now reads as follows:
Member-states are authorised to impose civil responsibility upon individuals within their jurisdiction, respecting the legislative bounds established by the World Assembly in regard to Civil Rights and Freedom of Expression

I've also replaced every instance of "memberstate" with "member-state", and intend to fully supplant american english with british english later.

Mesogiria wrote:
Furthermore, I frankly fail to understand your description of this as a "wretchedly disgusting idea". Are people merely assuming FACT is a legally coercive agency due to name alone? This is a purely secondary institution meant to aid public discourse, in ways that private entities of real life current democracies already do in a daily basis. If you wish to contribute, elaborate.


I don't see how it matters if FACT not directly persecuting people the actual effect of its reports will be to establish that people are undertaking criminal acts as defined by this legislation.

If you make it a crime to tell certain kinds of lies, and create an entity charged with monitoring people it thinks are lying and to issue reports about what it decides is the truth, then people absolutely will be prosecuted as a consequence of the reports issued by that entity. To pretend otherwise is absurd.

I think you've not really appreciated how rigorous the criteria for convicting someone for "disinformation" actually are. Disinformation needs to be perpetrated with the knowledge that something is false, and with the deliberate intent for that statement to deceive and cause harm. It is very difficult to prove before a court of law that someone has intentionally done anything on the internet - nothing short of a written statement could prove something like that. If there is any doubt - of which there will be plenty given how subjective and immaterial "intentionality" can be sometimes - a just and functioning legal system that respects the concept of in dubio pro reo in its penal legal doctrine will find the defendant to be innocent.

If you're worried about people being attacked with an accusation of disinformation despite only having committed misinformation, that's a problem with roots far deeper than this resolution can reach. Individual Law systems have their own ways to deal with the weaponisation of Law, but that is a problem that every resolution that forces member-nations to criminalise something deals with. You also seem to be under the impression that FACT would be somehow used as legal evidence: currently, no provision in this proposal links FACT and the judiciary of any member-nation. And a functioning legal system would not accept the mere word of some institution dedicated to fact-checking, even if they have the blessing of the WA. I'll eat my foot if a case is won by citing Snopes. And, as a cautionary response, in the case that a nation's legal system is not functioning properly, they'd have some explanation to do to the compliance commission, not me.

FACT just doesn't have that much legal relevance. The organisation is explicitly prohibited from persecuting specific agents of disinformation; they just analyse the facts as they become relevant to society and deliver their own report on the matter, judging if - say - a certain rumour about a relevant political actor is true or not. Although, looking at item I of article 3, I think I see why you brought up this interpretation. I've corrected it to read as follows:
FACT will monitor internally, without public disclosure, leading sources of false, manipulated, fabricated, fictional, unreliable, or misleading information

This is more in line with what I had in mind with the word "monitoring" here. Apologies for not being specific.
Last edited by Cessarea on Tue Apr 02, 2024 6:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Completely undecided on everything I guess

User avatar
Cessarea
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1293
Founded: Jul 02, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Cessarea » Wed Apr 10, 2024 6:02 pm

This is now in last call, for about two weeks or less.
Completely undecided on everything I guess

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Envoy
 
Posts: 222
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Wed Apr 10, 2024 6:36 pm

OOC: Hope to take a closer look at this once I get done with a few assignments, but at a very cursory glance the "Hoping" clause at the end does not make grammatical sense.

I'm particularly interested in this resolution because scientific misinformation is the policy area I work most closely with IRL

User avatar
Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 138
Founded: Mar 18, 2021
Anarchy

Postby Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands » Wed Apr 10, 2024 6:50 pm

Against. It is my hobby to spread negativity and misinformation online.
Ambassador: Benji Schubert Hepperle
Deputy Ambassador: Randall Wrigglesworth II
Coffee Fetcher/Secretary: Jonathan Dos Santos Oliveira

User avatar
Simone Republic
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1807
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Simone Republic » Wed Apr 10, 2024 8:17 pm

Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands wrote:Against. It is my hobby to spread negativity and misinformation online.


I am very tempted to agree with this statement but I will force myself not to.

Cessarea wrote:Orwell Society is no longer active, but he will be rightfully credited as a co-auhor. The fourth draft is now incorporated into this OP:


Wait. Go back a little bit. Did The Orwell Society actually exactly consent to this authorship? I know there were earlier replies from them. I forgot who is whom in TNP/TW.
Last edited by Simone Republic on Wed Apr 10, 2024 8:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
All posts OOC. (He/him). I don't speak for TNP. IC the "white bear" (it) is for jokes only.

User avatar
Cessarea
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1293
Founded: Jul 02, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Cessarea » Thu Apr 11, 2024 3:00 am

Bisofeyr wrote:OOC: Hope to take a closer look at this once I get done with a few assignments, but at a very cursory glance the "Hoping" clause at the end does not make grammatical sense.

I'm particularly interested in this resolution because scientific misinformation is the policy area I work most closely with IRL

Will correct the grammar on that one, and I'm looking forward to the feedback on the rest!

Simone Republic wrote:
Cessarea wrote:Orwell Society is no longer active, but he will be rightfully credited as a co-auhor. The fourth draft is now incorporated into this OP:


Wait. Go back a little bit. Did The Orwell Society actually exactly consent to this authorship? I know there were earlier replies from them. I forgot who is whom in TNP/TW.

Orwell Society has fully consented to this now, I've made contact with him a week ago and he authorised me to take control as author, with him as co-author. It's how I got ownership of this OP :p

Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands wrote:Against. It is my hobby to spread negativity and misinformation online.

If it's any consolation you can still spread negativity! Just tell people how shitty the world is by stating facts: it's incredibly effective.
Last edited by Cessarea on Thu Apr 11, 2024 3:03 am, edited 2 times in total.
Completely undecided on everything I guess

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bisofeyr, Cessarea, Kissinger-Monroe, The Ice States

Advertisement

Remove ads