[ON HOLD] Combating Disinformation

[The Orwell Society]

OOC INTRODUCTION:

This is a sort of spinoff from my most recent draft (which is now scrapped), "Combating Misinformation About Autism", now focusing on fighting misinformation, or more specifically, disinformation, in general. This is a heavy WIP, and I am looking forward to some (constructive and friendly) criticism to really make this draft the best it can be. Please, share any suggestions you have, this really needs feedback.

UPDATE: I really think this draft has gone a long way from the first draft thanks to all the help I've gotten. The definitions are now clear and concise, the language professional, and the purpose clear. If all goes well, I will start campaigning on June 1 and submitting on June 5. If anyone has any spare stamps, please send me a TG so we can make this known and approved. Thank you.

FINAL UPDATE: It has been submitted!

Combating Disinformation in Society

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Orwell Society
Co-author: -none yet-

The World Assembly,

Discontent at the amount of harmful disinformation on a variety of 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 defines for the purpose of this resolution:

1. "Disinformation," similar to misinformation, as false, unproven, and/or inaccurate information intentionally produced and distributed. In this resolution, all disinformation mentioned is that of harmful effect. The promoting of harmful disinformation can be defined as:
   
   1. a statement made by a person or group of people; that is
   2. falsely represented and stated to be a true fact;
   3. with the knowledge, from the person/people who made the statement, that the statement is factually untrue; and/or
   4. stated with a purposeful and reckless disregard for the statement's falsity; and
   5. is likely to cause harm to individuals specifically holding an arbitrary or reductive characteristic; and/or
   6. is intended to harm the reputation and/or wellbeing of any persons or nation.
2. Note that all disinformation in this resolution is harmful on a international scale, i.e. harmful to a significant portion of a member state's populace.

Hereby enacts the following:

1. The establishment of the Forthright Association for Circulating Truth (shortened to FACT) to provide each memberstate with a force actively fighting against harmful disinformation.
   
   1. FACT will monitor leading sources of suspicious, unreliable, and/or outright misleading information that is widely believed as true.
   2. FACT will not interfere in anything directly relating to or affecting one's religous beliefs.
   3. FACT will locate the sources of the disinformation and launch campaigns to combat it and provide the populace with proven, reliable facts.
   4. The disinformation handled by the FACT will be on a variety of topics, including but not limited to: physical, emotional, and mental health; history; political concepts; science and technology; and various other topics.
   5. The information distributed by the FACT must be proven fact, either by scientific, historical, or general research from proven, reliable sources.
   6. The information may be in any form each individual member state's government pleases, whether it be by book, internet article, pamphlet, advertising campaign, television program, etc., as long as it is an efficient method of spreading the information.
2. The criminalization of the deliberate, repeat spreading of harmful disinformation by a person or group of people.
   
   1. Punishment of an individual's violation of this ban will be decided upon by individual member state's government, whether it be by fines, incarceration, or community service.

Hoping that these measures may combat the spread of harmful disinformation for the betterment of all member states' societies.

• 5/21/2022, 1:45 P.M: After comments from Tinhampton, reworded 1a.
• 5/21/2022, 5:45 P.M: After suggestion from Anne of Cleves in TNP, changed committee acronym from BOT to FACT.
• 5/26/2022, 9:17 A.M: After much helpful feedback from Princess Rainbow Sparkles, definitions have been revised and added to and a co-author has been added.
• 5/27/2022, 3:23 P.M: After input from The Forest of Aeneas, revised definitions and added a subclause.
• 5/28/2022, 2:40 P.M: Reworded several clauses after a thorough proofread, fixed a few grammatical errors.
• 5/31/2022, 5:42 P.M: Fixed several typos, removed the definition and mention of propaganda.
• 6/1/2022, 11:08 A.M: Edited preambulatory clauses after complaints.

[/list]

[Comfed]

The “Bureau of Truth” is an unfortunate name.

[The Orwell Society]

The “Bureau of Truth” is an unfortunate name.

How so?

Don't mind the hidden 1984 reference.

[Tinhampton]

You admit that the BOT is asked to challenge

any false information that is intentionally false and could cause problems. Everything from ASD to the history of a political candidate to what's in the soil food is growing in to the working conditions of your average fast food worker.

Why should every single false claim or misleading piece of information be of interest to the BOT?

[The Orwell Society]

I have had some trouble with the category, but after some thought, I have decided to put it under political stability due to the fact of it technically infringing upon free speech and press, effecting political freedom more so than civil rights. There have been other suggestions, but I felt as if political stability is the most fitting category for what this proposal covers.

[The Orwell Society]

You admit that the BOT is asked to challenge

any false information that is intentionally false and could cause problems. Everything from ASD to the history of a political candidate to what's in the soil food is growing in to the working conditions of your average fast food worker.

Why should every single false claim or misleading piece of information be of interest to the BOT?

I also include, in the proposal, "[the BOT will]…monitor leading large, nation-wide sources of suspicious, unreliable, and/or outright misleading information…", implying that the BOT's responsibility is to fight disinformation that could cause problems on a national scale.

[Tinhampton]

Not every lie that is popular in a member state is spread by a "large, nation-wide source."

[The Orwell Society]

Not every lie that is popular in a member state is spread by a "large, nation-wide source."

True. Perhaps I didn't word it correctly. What I meant was a source that provides a lie that is believed throughout the nation. Should I reword it?

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

OOC INTRODUCTION:

This is a sort of spinoff from my most recent draft (which is now scrapped), "Combating Misinformation About Autism", now focusing on figgting misinformation, or more specifically, disinformation, in general. This is a heavy WIP, and I am looking forward to some (constructive and friendly) criticism to really make this draft the best it can be. Please, share any suggestions you have, this really needs feedback.

Combating Disinformation in Society

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Orwell Society

The World Assembly,

Frightened at the amount of disinformation and/or propaganda on a variety of topics that some memberstate's societies produce and distribute on a daily basis;

Unsettled at the fact that said disinformation is believed and taken to heart by a large part of the populace;

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

Hereby defines for the purpose of this resolution:

1. "Disinformation," similiar to misinformation, as false, unproven, and/or inaccurate information intentionally produced and distributed for a corrupt and unmoral purpose often associated with propaganda.
2. "Propaganda" as a form of disinformation that is used to promote a particular cause or point of view, often that of corrupt and unmoral nature.

Hereby enacts the following:

1. The establishment of the Board of Truth (BOT) to provide each memberstate with a force actively fighting against propaganda and other forms of disinformation.
   
   1. This board will monitor leading sources of suspicious, unreliable, and/or outright misleading information that is widely believed as true.
   2. BOT will locate the sources of the disinformation and launch campaigns to combat it and provide the populace with proven, reliable facts.
2. The disinformation handled by the BOT will be on a variety of topics, including but not limited to: physical, emotional, and mental health; history; political concepts; science and technology; and various other topics.
3. The information distributed by the BOT must be proven fact, either by scientific, historical, or general research from proven, reliable sources.
   
   1. The information may be in any form each individual memberstate's government pleases, whether it be by book, internet article, pamphlet, advertising campaign, television program, etc., as long as it is an efficient method of spreading the information.

5/21/2022, 1:45 P.M: After comments from Tinhampton, reworded 1a

“This proposal is a major improvement. Unlike the previous version, its aim is more broad and has a fair amount of clauses. My only concern is that the acronym, B.O.T., seems suspicious. From what I perceive, humans are more likely to trust closely-related human friends or family rather than any machine. Therefore, I suggest that the name should be changed to the Forthright Association for Circulating Truth (FACT). That way, both the full name and acronym are free from suspicion and still convey the main goals of the committee outlined in the proposal.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[The Orwell Society]

OOC INTRODUCTION:

This is a sort of spinoff from my most recent draft (which is now scrapped), "Combating Misinformation About Autism", now focusing on figgting misinformation, or more specifically, disinformation, in general. This is a heavy WIP, and I am looking forward to some (constructive and friendly) criticism to really make this draft the best it can be. Please, share any suggestions you have, this really needs feedback.

Combating Disinformation in Society

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Orwell Society

The World Assembly,

Frightened at the amount of disinformation and/or propaganda on a variety of topics that some memberstate's societies produce and distribute on a daily basis;

Unsettled at the fact that said disinformation is believed and taken to heart by a large part of the populace;

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

Hereby defines for the purpose of this resolution:

1. "Disinformation," similiar to misinformation, as false, unproven, and/or inaccurate information intentionally produced and distributed for a corrupt and unmoral purpose often associated with propaganda.
2. "Propaganda" as a form of disinformation that is used to promote a particular cause or point of view, often that of corrupt and unmoral nature.

Hereby enacts the following:

1. The establishment of the Board of Truth (BOT) to provide each memberstate with a force actively fighting against propaganda and other forms of disinformation.
   
   1. This board will monitor leading sources of suspicious, unreliable, and/or outright misleading information that is widely believed as true.
   2. BOT will locate the sources of the disinformation and launch campaigns to combat it and provide the populace with proven, reliable facts.
2. The disinformation handled by the BOT will be on a variety of topics, including but not limited to: physical, emotional, and mental health; history; political concepts; science and technology; and various other topics.
3. The information distributed by the BOT must be proven fact, either by scientific, historical, or general research from proven, reliable sources.
   
   1. The information may be in any form each individual memberstate's government pleases, whether it be by book, internet article, pamphlet, advertising campaign, television program, etc., as long as it is an efficient method of spreading the information.

5/21/2022, 1:45 P.M: After comments from Tinhampton, reworded 1a

“This proposal is a major improvement. Unlike the previous version, its aim is more broad and has a fair amount of clauses. My only concern is that the acronym, B.O.T., seems suspicious. From what I perceive, humans are more likely to trust closely-related human friends or family rather than any machine. Therefore, I suggest that the name should be changed to the Forthright Association for Circulating Truth (FACT). That way, both the full name and acronym are free from suspicion and still convey the main goals of the committee outlined in the proposal.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

Brilliant advice! Thank you, Ambassador. I was rather unsure about the acronym any, and was hoping someone would catch it and provide a better one.

[Separatist Peoples]

"To what degree of confidence must fact be proven? Is it enough to allege a modicum of truth among a sea of lies? Might an entity argue that slavery was beneficial to a particular group based on cherry picked examples of technical truth among assertions of opinion? Bigtopian officials may accuse Maxtopian government of being riddled with fascists justifying military intervention. Is a mere two fascist adherents in the government sufficient to base this claim despite the picture of fascist regime the Bigtopian accusations intended to evoke?

"This is a pipedream policy, Ambassador. Truth is almost never absolute."

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

"To what degree of confidence must fact be proven? Is it enough to allege a modicum of truth among a sea of lies? Might an entity argue that slavery was beneficial to a particular group based on cherry picked examples of technical truth among assertions of opinion? Bigtopian officials may accuse Maxtopian government of being riddled with fascists justifying military intervention. Is a mere two fascist adherents in the government sufficient to base this claim despite the picture of fascist regime the Bigtopian accusations intended to evoke?

"This is a pipedream policy, Ambassador. Truth is almost never absolute."

“Your comparisons are very intriguing, ambassador. And you are right on the fact that truth is indefinite and abstract. However, if the WA never legislates on preventing the spread of lies, then who will stop the entire world from lying and becoming 99.9% evil? See, when there is no legislation on something, people can just violate it without any restrictions. Thus, as I see it, your comment would only suggest scrapping this proposal and allowing all of the multiverse to be condemned to eternal suffering. And I do not think any of us want to go there.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[The Orwell Society]

"To what degree of confidence must fact be proven? Is it enough to allege a modicum of truth among a sea of lies? Might an entity argue that slavery was beneficial to a particular group based on cherry picked examples of technical truth among assertions of opinion? Bigtopian officials may accuse Maxtopian government of being riddled with fascists justifying military intervention. Is a mere two fascist adherents in the government sufficient to base this claim despite the picture of fascist regime the Bigtopian accusations intended to evoke?

"This is a pipedream policy, Ambassador. Truth is almost never absolute."

I see your point, Ambassador. Not much can be done in situations where science and records fails to explain a situation. Sometimes even logic can be twisted into some misguided soul's "truth", and by then, argument is pointless. However, this proposal targets things that can be proven.

For example, let me give you fictional scenario. Let's say a popular news outlet is campaiging the "fact" that vaccines cause autism. Now, if scientific research has been done on the topic, than it can be proven incorrect with a simple campaign against the lie.

Another example, that same news outlet says that the water in which cities are provided with is poisonous. If an outside (but reliable) party (independant to the one that provides the water) researches the problem and tests the water to see that it it is not harmful, than FACT would provide the people with the truth, that the water is not poisonous.

Now, I could give several more examples if you want, but the jist is there. Absolute truth is not as uncommon as you think, and that is what this draft is dealing with. Not subjective truth, but absolute truth.

[The Orwell Society]

"To what degree of confidence must fact be proven? Is it enough to allege a modicum of truth among a sea of lies? Might an entity argue that slavery was beneficial to a particular group based on cherry picked examples of technical truth among assertions of opinion? Bigtopian officials may accuse Maxtopian government of being riddled with fascists justifying military intervention. Is a mere two fascist adherents in the government sufficient to base this claim despite the picture of fascist regime the Bigtopian accusations intended to evoke?

"This is a pipedream policy, Ambassador. Truth is almost never absolute."

“Your comparisons are very intriguing, ambassador. And you are right on the fact that truth is indefinite and abstract. However, if the WA never legislates on preventing the spread of lies, then who will stop the entire world from lying and becoming 99.9% evil? See, when there is no legislation on something, people can just violate it without any restrictions. Thus, as I see it, your comment would only suggest scrapping this proposal and allowing all of the multiverse to be condemned to eternal suffering. And I do not think any of us want to go there.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

OOC: Oh, and also, what she said

[Imperium Anglorum]

“Your comparisons are very intriguing, ambassador. And you are right on the fact that truth is indefinite and abstract. However, if the WA never legislates on preventing the spread of lies, then who will stop the entire world from lying and becoming 99.9% evil? See, when there is no legislation on something, people can just violate it without any restrictions. Thus, as I see it, your comment would only suggest scrapping this proposal and allowing all of the multiverse to be condemned to eternal suffering. And I do not think any of us want to go there.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

C Marcius Blythe. Ambassador, truth has its own rewards. Lies find themselves in conflict with reality. This is a well-known topic in political science. See generally neoclassical models of rational ignorance. (OOC. Bryan Caplan, Myth of the Rational Voter (2008) chs 4–7.)

[The Orwell Society]

“Your comparisons are very intriguing, ambassador. And you are right on the fact that truth is indefinite and abstract. However, if the WA never legislates on preventing the spread of lies, then who will stop the entire world from lying and becoming 99.9% evil? See, when there is no legislation on something, people can just violate it without any restrictions. Thus, as I see it, your comment would only suggest scrapping this proposal and allowing all of the multiverse to be condemned to eternal suffering. And I do not think any of us want to go there.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

C Marcius Blythe. Ambassador, truth has its own rewards. Lies find themselves in conflict with reality. This is a well-known topic in political science. See generally neoclassical models of rational ignorance. (OOC. Bryan Caplan, Myth of the Rational Voter (2008) chs 4–7.)

Concept aside, do you have any advice, suggestions, or comments about the draft? Any feedback isvery appreciated.

[Imperium Anglorum]

C Marcius Blythe. Ambassador, truth has its own rewards. Lies find themselves in conflict with reality. This is a well-known topic in political science. See generally neoclassical models of rational ignorance. (OOC. Bryan Caplan, Myth of the Rational Voter (2008) chs 4–7.)

Concept aside, do you have any advice, suggestions, or comments about the draft? Any feedback isvery appreciated.

Blanket corrections don't work. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.3823.

[The Orwell Society]

Concept aside, do you have any advice, suggestions, or comments about the draft? Any feedback isvery appreciated.

Blanket corrections don't work. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.3823.

But they can help… What do you think people are going to believe, some random website/newspaper/article, or a WA-funded board of information called FACT?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Blanket corrections don't work. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.3823.

But they can help… What do you think people are going to believe, some random website/newspaper/article, or a WA-funded board of information called FACT?

They are going to believe whatever they want to believe unless failing to change their beliefs has a negative impact on their utility (or otherwise if changing has a positive impact). See eg Hashimzade et al (eds), Dictionary of economics (5th ed, 2017) sv "rational ignorance".

[The Orwell Society]

But they can help… What do you think people are going to believe, some random website/newspaper/article, or a WA-funded board of information called FACT?

They are going to believe whatever they want to believe unless failing to change their beliefs has a negative impact on their utility (or otherwise if changing has a positive impact). See eg Hashimzade et al (eds), Dictionary of economics (5th ed, 2017) sv "rational ignorance".

True. But the least this proposal could do is provide the populace with truth, even if they don't want to believe it.

Also, what I'm thinking of adding is a clause or two suppressing harmful disinformation, but I'm unsure if that'll be taking it too far.

[Makko Oko]

"Does this also apply to half-truths or only to flat out lies?" - The Makko Oko Ministry Of Diplomatic Affairs, World Assembly Affairs Division

[The Orwell Society]

"Does this also apply to half-truths or only to flat out lies?" - The Makko Oko Ministry Of Diplomatic Affairs, World Assembly Affairs Division

Mostly just flat-out lies, but if the half-truths are harmful, than it applies there, too

[Imperium Anglorum]

Let's say I say that tariffs are good and help infant industries. Is this true or not? How about minimum wage impacts on unemployment? Or large fiscal stimulus programmes on inflation? If I said that there are Anglican agents infiltrating Livonia, how do you correct this? If I said that vaccines cause autism due to some empirical evidence but before it came out that the empirical evidence was fabricated? Truths and facts are not absolute; this proposal's very goals are unfeasible.

[The Orwell Society]

Let's say I say that tariffs are good and help infant industries. Is this true or not? How about minimum wage impacts on unemployment? Or large fiscal stimulus programmes on inflation? If I said that there are Anglican agents infiltrating Livonia, how do you correct this? If I said that vaccines cause autism due to some empirical evidence but before it came out that the empirical evidence was fabricated? Truths and facts are not absolute; this proposal's very goals are unfeasible.

You saying tariffs are good wouldn't be misinformation, it would be purely opinion. Anglican agents infiltrating Livonia would not effect you unless you live in one of those, therefore not important enough to correct. If you say that vaccines cause autism, and that is before research proves it untrue, that that would be subjective and unsupported, therefore not of interest of the FACT until research says otherwise. I beg to differ.

[Bistritza]

...It's like looking at a broken mirror.
And stop staring at me with that big old eye.

---

I don't think it's possible and if it is then I don't think it's desirable to use ''Frightened'' and ''Unsettled'' as Preambulatory clauses or at least not start with them.
A bigger issue is that, most nations aren't self-destructive...so I can't see this being voted in.