[ON HOLD] Combating Disinformation

[The Orwell Society]

is likely to cause harm to individuals specifically holding an arbiterary or reductive characteristic; and/or

Note that all disinformation in this resolution is harmful on a international scale, i.e. harmful to a significant portion of a memberstate's populace.

"Propaganda" as a form of disinformation that is used to promote a particular cause or point of view, often that of corrupt and unimmoral nature beneficial to a certain group or organization but harmful to others if believed to be true.

FACT will not interfere in anything directly relating to or eaffecting one's religious beliefs.

Thank you. Sorry, my device doesn't have autocorrect so I am purely relying on my own eyes.

[Tinfect]

The World Assembly,[list=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.

OOC:
Is this meant to mean that FACT will establish a force for each Member-State, or that it will serve itself, as a universal force for each Member-State?

[*]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.
[*]The information distributed by the FACT must be proven fact, either by scientific, historical, or general research from proven, reliable sources.

So, the big question here is, who decides what counts as a 'proven fact', or a 'reliable source'? Take, for example, the long standing history of 'reliable' institutions disregarding indigenous knowledge, or how eugenics was, despite being plainly bad science, 'proven and reliable fact' via scientific consensus, or the present state of mental illness research and the lack of 'reliable' consensus on it (particularly with psychotic disorders,) that isn't blatantly discriminatory or harmful. 'Reliable, Proven Facts', are often quite different from the actual facts on a given matter, and the consensus of 'reliable' institutions is fully capable of causing harm. FACT Runs the risk of being a massively regressive and harmful force, and there's really no easy way to fix that.

Another question: How does FACT handle the deliberate omission or centering of certain facts to produce inaccurate or propagandistic understandings? Consider how the Civil Rights Movement in the US is taught in US schools; the primary focus is on non-violence, the 'I Have A Dream' speech, the general misrepresentation of Dr. King and the greater movement as being wholly and principally peaceful, and generally amenable to liberal society, when the reality of the matter is far more complex, and much less pretty. Does FACT have a duty to distribute the Letter from Birmingham Jail, and to inform people of the importance of less-peaceful parts of the movement? Or is this misrepresentation and manipulation, by virtue of containing no specific lies, not within FACT's purview?

[Bistritza]

So, besides what I've mentioned here:

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.

The second enactment has an issue:

The criminalization of the deliberate, repeat spreading of harmful disinformation by a person or group of people.
Punishment of an individual's violation of this ban will be decided upon by individual memberstate's government, whether it be by fines, incarceration, or community service.

What methodology is precisely used to distinguish between 'deliberately' spreading disinformation and spreading disinformation because the person has genuinely been convinced by it? It's assumed and is true that spreading misinformation by second-hand sources (as in, not the ones creating the disinformation) is an act of ignorance. Furthermore, even when ignorance of second-hand sources is willful, they're not conscious of it. I don't know why ''coping'' is being criminalized here but more importantly I don't know how it can even be enforced.
I still do support this for reasons I've mentioned earlier.

[The Orwell Society]

The World Assembly,[list=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.

OOC:
Is this meant to mean that FACT will establish a force for each Member-State, or that it will serve itself, as a universal force for each Member-State?

[*]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.
[*]The information distributed by the FACT must be proven fact, either by scientific, historical, or general research from proven, reliable sources.

So, the big question here is, who decides what counts as a 'proven fact', or a 'reliable source'? Take, for example, the long standing history of 'reliable' institutions disregarding indigenous knowledge, or how eugenics was, despite being plainly bad science, 'proven and reliable fact' via scientific consensus, or the present state of mental illness research and the lack of 'reliable' consensus on it (particularly with psychotic disorders,) that isn't blatantly discriminatory or harmful. 'Reliable, Proven Facts', are often quite different from the actual facts on a given matter, and the consensus of 'reliable' institutions is fully capable of causing harm. FACT Runs the risk of being a massively regressive and harmful force, and there's really no easy way to fix that.

Another question: How does FACT handle the deliberate omission or centering of certain facts to produce inaccurate or propagandistic understandings? Consider how the Civil Rights Movement in the US is taught in US schools; the primary focus is on non-violence, the 'I Have A Dream' speech, the general misrepresentation of Dr. King and the greater movement as being wholly and principally peaceful, and generally amenable to liberal society, when the reality of the matter is far more complex, and much less pretty. Does FACT have a duty to distribute the Letter from Birmingham Jail, and to inform people of the importance of less-peaceful parts of the movement? Or is this misrepresentation and manipulation, by virtue of containing no specific lies, not within FACT's purview?

1. As a universal, WA-run force, yes.
2. And that is a flaw that can't really be fixed. No resolution is perfect, but as said above, whether or not FACT does its job correctly is up to the WA and who they employ.
3. FACT has the duty of informing people of the truth, however good or bd it may be. And keep in mind, the only time FACT distributes info on a topic is when another source is making people believe the disinformation. Combating, not anything else. FACT will only act in response to blatant spreading of disinformation.

[The Orwell Society]

So, besides what I've mentioned here:

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.

The second enactment has an issue:

The criminalization of the deliberate, repeat spreading of harmful disinformation by a person or group of people.
Punishment of an individual's violation of this ban will be decided upon by individual memberstate's government, whether it be by fines, incarceration, or community service.

What methodology is precisely used to distinguish between 'deliberately' spreading disinformation and spreading disinformation because the person has genuinely been convinced by it? It's assumed and is true that spreading misinformation by second-hand sources (as in, not the ones creating the disinformation) is an act of ignorance. Furthermore, even when ignorance of second-hand sources is willful, they're not conscious of it. I don't know why ''coping'' is being criminalized here but more importantly I don't know how it can even be enforced.
I still do support this for reasons I've mentioned earlier.

Thank you for your support. Trust me, it is much appreciated. I will make new preambulatory clauses and further elaborate on the second enactment. Thank you!

[Tinfect]

1. As a universal, WA-run force, yes.

OOC:
Then you may want to try rephrasing the line to something like this:

The establishment of the Forthright Association for Circulating Truth (shortened to FACT) to provide memberstates with a force actively fighting against harmful disinformation.

A slight change, but it makes it a bit more clear, I feel.

2. And that is a flaw that can't really be fixed. No resolution is perfect, but as said above, whether or not FACT does its job correctly is up to the WA and who they employ.

For the record, while it can be assumed that all WA Committees are staffed by the WA Gnome, an incorruptible and otherwise perfect agent of International Law, in, more reasonable terms, this is still a huge flaw, and is itself reason to oppose the legislation. If there's no mechanism in the draft by which it can be assured that FACT will be unable to act as a dangerously regressive force, (And, as you said, this isn't something that can really be done,) then it's just not a good idea.

3. FACT has the duty of informing people of the truth, however good or bd it may be. And keep in mind, the only time FACT distributes info on a topic is when another source is making people believe the disinformation. Combating, not anything else. FACT will only act in response to blatant spreading of disinformation.

So FACT is only capable of addressing outright positive lies? Not lies of omission or the propagandistic centering of certain facts above others?

[The Orwell Society]

1. As a universal, WA-run force, yes.

OOC:
Then you may want to try rephrasing the line to something like this:

The establishment of the Forthright Association for Circulating Truth (shortened to FACT) to provide memberstates with a force actively fighting against harmful disinformation.

A slight change, but it makes it a bit more clear, I feel.

2. And that is a flaw that can't really be fixed. No resolution is perfect, but as said above, whether or not FACT does its job correctly is up to the WA and who they employ.

For the record, while it can be assumed that all WA Committees are staffed by the WA Gnome, an incorruptible and otherwise perfect agent of International Law, in, more reasonable terms, this is still a huge flaw, and is itself reason to oppose the legislation. If there's no mechanism in the draft by which it can be assured that FACT will be unable to act as a dangerously regressive force, (And, as you said, this isn't something that can really be done,) then it's just not a good idea.

3. FACT has the duty of informing people of the truth, however good or bd it may be. And keep in mind, the only time FACT distributes info on a topic is when another source is making people believe the disinformation. Combating, not anything else. FACT will only act in response to blatant spreading of disinformation.

So FACT is only capable of addressing outright positive lies? Not lies of omission or the propagandistic centering of certain facts above others?

1. Okay, that will be fixed
2. I'm out of ideas to fix that, but I will think hard about it.
3. Sorry, typo, "…no matter how good or [i]bad[/] it may be."

[Imperium Anglorum]

memberstate

Is not a word.

[The Orwell Society]

memberstate

Is not a word.

I'm pretty sure I've seen it previously-password resolutions. I can seperate it into "member state". Would that be good?

[Fachumonn]

Is not a word.

I'm pretty sure I've seen it previously-password resolutions. I can seperate it into "member state". Would that be good?

Definitely better.

[The Orwell Society]

I'm pretty sure I've seen it previously-password resolutions. I can seperate it into "member state". Would that be good?

Definitely better.

It is done. Thank you. Submission in 4 days!

[Imperium Anglorum]

Is not a word.

I'm pretty sure I've seen it previously-password resolutions. I can seperate it into "member state". Would that be good?

I don't entirely believe that claim... search.php?keywords=Memberstate+&t=30. But splitting it would be best.

[The Orwell Society]

I'm pretty sure I've seen it previously-password resolutions. I can seperate it into "member state". Would that be good?

I don't entirely believe that claim... search.php?keywords=Memberstate+&t=30. But splitting it would be best.

Done. Thank you.

[The Orwell Society]

Last call for this. I will submit tomorrow!

[Bistritza]

Last call for this. I will submit tomorrow!

I hope it passes quota, I really really do.
But considering what's already been proposed and by whom, probably not.
Now ''if'' it just so happens that the current most supported repeal gets to put to vote and accepted, I'll be pushing for this very hard until it gets put to vote. Even if rejected, I want it to be a topic.

[The Orwell Society]

Last call for this. I will submit tomorrow!

I hope it passes quota, I really really do.
But considering what's already been proposed and by whom, probably not.
Now ''if'' it just so happens that the current most supported repeal gets to put to vote and accepted, I'll be pushing for this very hard until it gets put to vote. Even if rejected, I want it to be a topic.

Honestly, it probably will reach quorum (I have enough stamps to send a telegram to every WA delegate in the game), but I have my doubts that it'll pass. I've worked so hard on it, but it doesn't seem to be getting enough support

[Fachumonn]

I guess I'll approve.

[The Orwell Society]

I guess I'll approve.

Thank you!

[Fachumonn]

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1654442729

[The Orwell Society]

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=the_orwell_society_1654442729

Added to OP

[The Orwell Society]

I think its doing very well approval-wise. Not even 24 hours on the court and its recieved 52 delegate approvals, with only 12 more needed to reach quorum!

[Bistritza]

I think its doing very well approval-wise. Not even 24 hours on the court and its recieved 52 delegate approvals, with only 12 more needed to reach quorum!

9 more
Hope it's the next topic, got rough ideas for a resolution which expands on this being approved or rejected

[Tinfect]

OOC:
The combination of the aforementioned issues - that each remain entirely unresolved, - namely, the high potential of FACT to act as a scientifically and socially regressive body, and FACT's inability to counter any form of disinformation which is not in the form of outright bald-faced lies, render this proposal both potentially dangerous, and largely toothless with regard to its presumed intent. Opposed.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: What's the point of the Hoping part? It's weirdly out of place. For that reason alone, unequivocally opposed. Not to mention the harm this will cause our Ministry of Education.

[The Orwell Society]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: What's the point of the Hoping part? It's weirdly out of place. For that reason alone, unequivocally opposed. Not to mention the harm this will cause our Ministry of Education.

The hoping clause wraps it up and further elaborates on the purpose. Think of it as a conclusion.