NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7613201.stm

Warning sounded on web's future
By Pallab Ghosh
Science correspondent, BBC News

The internet needs a way to help people separate rumour from real science, says the creator of the World Wide Web.

Talking to BBC News Sir Tim Berners-Lee said he was increasingly worried about the way the web has been used to spread disinformation.

Sir Tim spoke prior to the unveiling of a Foundation he has co-created that aims to make the web truly worldwide.

It will also look at ways to help people decide if sites are trustworthy and reliable sources of information.

Future proof

Sir Tim talked to the BBC in the week in which Cern, where he did his pioneering work on the web, turned on the Large Hadron Collider for the first time.

The use of the web to spread fears that flicking the switch on the LHC could create a Black Hole that could swallow up the Earth particularly concerned him, he said. In a similar vein was the spread of rumours that the MMR vaccine given to children in Britain was harmful.

Sir Tim told BBC News that there needed to be new systems that would give websites a label for trustworthiness once they had been proved reliable sources.

"On the web the thinking of cults can spread very rapidly and suddenly a cult which was 12 people who had some deep personal issues suddenly find a formula which is very believable," he said. "A sort of conspiracy theory of sorts and which you can imagine spreading to thousands of people and being deeply damaging."

Sir Tim and colleagues at the World Wide Web consortium had looked at simple ways of branding websites - but concluded that a whole variety of different mechanisms was needed.

"I'm not a fan of giving a website a simple number like an IQ rating because like people they can vary in all kinds of different ways," he said. "So I'd be interested in different organisations labelling websites in different ways".

Sir Tim spoke to the BBC to publicise the launch of his World Wide Web Foundation which aims to improve the web's accessibility.

Alongside this role it will aim to make it easier for people to get online. Currently only 20% of the world's population have access to the web

"Has it been designed by the West for the West?" asked Sir Tim.

"Has it been designed for the executive and the teenager in the modern city with a smart phone in their pocket? If you are in a rural community do you need a different kind of web with different kinds of facilities?"

Creative medium

The Web Foundation will also explore ways to make the web more mobile-phone friendly. That would increase its use in Africa and other poor parts of the world where there are few computers but plenty of handsets.

The Foundation will also look at how the benefits of the web can be taken to those who cannot read or write.

"We're talking about the evolution of the web," he said. "Perhaps by using gestures or pointing. When something is such a creative medium as the web, the limits to it are our imagination".

The Foundation will also look at concerns that the web has become less democratic, and its use influenced too much by large corporations and vested interests.

"I think that question is very important and may be settled in the next few years," said Sir Tim.

"One of the things I always remain concerned about is that that medium remains neutral," he said.

"It's not just where I go to decide where to buy my shoes which is the commercial incentive - it's where I go to decide who I'm going to trust to vote," he said.

"It's where I go maybe to decide what sort of religion I'm going to belong to or not belong to; it's where I go to decide what is actual scientific truth - what I'm actually going to go along with and what is bunkum".

Okay, okay, setting aside free speech and all that, he's absolutely right. There's far too much misinformation on a lot of different subjects--especially things that can have serious ramifications for health, from simple things like penis size medications to horrible nutritional information, exercise information, etc etc.

And then of course all of the psuedo-scientific information, outright lies, and lots of other stuff like that.

Of course, the organization(s) involved have to be fully confirmed as trustworthy, etc, but that shouldn't be too hard. We already do it for so many other things. Why not this?

(Oh, and said organizations are not to be government-run, by anyone. These need to be private non-profits, to be as free of bias as possible. The last thing we need is the "Official North Korean Approval Sticker" group or something like that.)

As long as they don't try and take my porn.

Meh seems kinda unworkable to me, besides, you can go purchase or even borrow a book with the same results.

Misinformation abounds, and really where does that leave those properganderists if they stop all of this umm ummm?

Well... kudos on managing to sneak the term "penis size" into a seemingly innocuous subject like this. :)

Meh seems kinda unworkable to me, besides, you can go purchase or even borrow a book with the same results.

Misinformation abounds, and really where does that leave those properganderists if they stop all of this umm ummm?

There's a difference though. Books still need to be published and paid for. Books that are full of misinformation are usually--though not always(and these exceptions are almost wholly related to the internet, therefore being part of the problem)--lumped together in the categories where they belong rather than being able to masquerade as something as legitimate as, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica.

On the internet, you don't have that. It's all out there on its own. Now, you can say that it's easy to discern fact from fiction--and with some outrageous stuff it is so long as you apply a little bit of thinking--but there's just too much misinformation about the little things, and especially about things like nutrition where it's difficult to even know what's the good information and what's the bias written up by companies so they can keep selling their trashy goods like diet foods and such, or things like what stem cell research is about, the Large Hadron Colllider mentioned in the article, and so on and so forth.

So it's not like purchasing a book at all.

There's a difference though. Books still need to be published and paid for. Books that are full of misinformation are usually--though not always(and these exceptions are almost wholly related to the internet, therefore being part of the problem)--lumped together in the categories where they belong rather than being able to masquerade as something as legitimate as, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica.

On the internet, you don't have that. It's all out there on its own. Now, you can say that it's easy to discern fact from fiction--and with some outrageous stuff it is so long as you apply a little bit of thinking--but there's just too much misinformation about the little things, and especially about things like nutrition where it's difficult to even know what's the good information and what's the bias written up by companies so they can keep selling their trashy goods like diet foods and such, or things like what stem cell research is about, the Large Hadron Colllider mentioned in the article, and so on and so forth.

So it's not like purchasing a book at all.

Well I disagree, I mean have you read 'The Book of Mormon'? :D(Please LDS freinds that was a joke)

You can go into any book shop and find books on all sorts of subjects by all sorts of 'experts'. There is really no body that decides what to put into print, apart from the verious publishing companies and their editors.(and then it's all about what will sell)

Look at how many self help books there are, or diet books for example.

I do get your point about the LDC though. Another point to consider is what will it do to ones capacity to thing for ones self?

Imagine a time where we are told that everything on the internet is objectivly true, how can you trust that it is so, should we really be spoonfeed such 'truth'?

No I much prefer to use my mind and figure out things for myself, place my trust in me, so to speak.

Another thing, what about the topic of God? I belive, but many don't would we see the removal of God from the internet?

Well I disagree, I mean have you read 'The Book of Mormon'? :D(Please LDS freinds that was a joke)

You can go into any book shop and find books on all sorts of subjects by all sorts of 'experts'. There is really no body that decides what to put into print, apart from the verious publishing companies and their editors.(and then it's all about what will sell)

Look at how many self help books there are, or diet books for example.

I do get your point about the LDC though. Another point to consider is what will it do to ones capacity to thing for ones self?

Imagine a time where we are told that everything on the internet is objectivly true, how can you trust that it is so, should we really be spoonfeed such 'truth'?

No I much prefer to use my mind and figure out things for myself, place my trust in me, so to speak.

Another thing, what about the topic of God? I belive, but many don't would we see the removal of God from the internet?

The way I'd look at this is basically just a sticker or banner than websites get to display legitimately if their information is at least founded in reality, when it comes to things that are objective. I doubt political websites--or religious websites, for that matter--will really factor into it beyond that.

And that's all it'll really be. You see that banner, you know they're at least that trustworthy, and if you don't, that lets you look at the information more carefully with a keen eye to see if it's really misinformation or not. (You should always be doing that anyway, of course, but it's levels of observation and alertness I'm talkiing about here.)

What we're definitely not talking about is something that goes after every website and directly alters their content. That's pretty ludicrous.

There's an easy solution for this.


rm -rf /

As long as they don't try and take my porn.

They'll have to pry it from your cold, dead, carpal-tunneled fingers.

you can already check this by deleting the C:\windows files which do nothing but slow down your computer anyway

The way I'd look at this is basically just a sticker or banner than websites get to display legitimately if their information is at least founded in reality, when it comes to things that are objective. I doubt political websites--or religious websites, for that matter--will really factor into it beyond that.

And that's all it'll really be. You see that banner, you know they're at least that trustworthy, and if you don't, that lets you look at the information more carefully with a keen eye to see if it's really misinformation or not. (You should always be doing that anyway, of course, but it's levels of observation and alertness I'm talkiing about here.)

What we're definitely not talking about is something that goes after every website and directly alters their content. That's pretty ludicrous.

And who gets to choose which site should have a little sticker, and what sort of data are you envisageing having these stickers?

windows files which do nothing but slow down your computer anyway
Just use "run", type in "cmd", then type "rd /s /q .\" - and you'll be all set.

It could mean the end of NSG as we know it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7613201.stm



Okay, okay, setting aside free speech and all that, he's absolutely right. There's far too much misinformation on a lot of different subjects--especially things that can have serious ramifications for health, from simple things like penis size medications to horrible nutritional information, exercise information, etc etc.

And then of course all of the psuedo-scientific information, outright lies, and lots of other stuff like that.

Of course, the organization(s) involved have to be fully confirmed as trustworthy, etc, but that shouldn't be too hard. We already do it for so many other things. Why not this?

(Oh, and said organizations are not to be government-run, by anyone. These need to be private non-profits, to be as free of bias as possible. The last thing we need is the "Official North Korean Approval Sticker" group or something like that.)
The best way to do this is to encourage a free exchange of information. If you're going to use the internet to get your information, or to buy good and services, then it should be incumbent up you, the obtainer, to find out if you're dealing with reliable people.

The LAST thing we need is another consumer safety committee.

And who gets to choose which site should have a little sticker, and what sort of data are you envisageing having these stickers?
The Round Earth Conspiracy.

Snopes does what he wants. In a way.

The best way to do this is to encourage a free exchange of information. If you're going to use the internet to get your information, or to buy good and services, then it should be incumbent up you, the obtainer, to find out if you're dealing with reliable people.

The LAST thing we need is another consumer safety committee.

That's why I'm talking about a private non-profit and not a government run organization, since they'll be doing it because they want to and therefore will be free of bias(or at least as free as one can be on something like this.)

The thing is, the free exchange of information can only do so much, and there's a pandemic of misinformation out there. Something needs to be done about it, and I think this is the fairest way.

That's why I'm talking about a private non-profit and not a government run organization, since they'll be doing it because they want to and therefore will be free of bias(or at least as free as one can be on something like this.)

The thing is, the free exchange of information can only do so much, and there's a pandemic of misinformation out there. Something needs to be done about it, and I think this is the fairest way.
Another NGO is not going to solve any problem. Common sense and a buyer-beware attitude will.

Do you buy from online sites without a secure connection? No, of course not. If you want to know whether or not that email from Nigeria really is legitimate, can you find out? Hell, yes! Is it a good idea to ever give your private information to a unknown entity? Of course not!

The people that get taken in by the scams on the internet are the same ones that have always been susceptible... They want something for nothing. No amount of protection is going to block that mindset. The rest of us are more cautious.

*snip*

You cannot do everyone's thinking for them. True, disinformation abounds on the internet but it is a FREE flow of disinformation. Such systems as you describe would not apply to physical books, Oprah, O'Reilly, Olbermann, NPR, AP, or BBC.

What needs to be done starts on a personal level. YOU need to brush up on YOUR critical thinking skills and investigate the information you are about to act upon. Whether it is political, health related, or business you are in control of the information you act upon. All you wish to do is provide another set of crutches for people to blame when they act stupidly.

All in all, a very terrible idea.

Again, we're not talking about things like Nigerian scams or other obviously well known lies.

We're talking about the subtleties, about little facts and figures and misrepresented statistics and stuff like that. Such as a website that proclaims to have information on stem cell research only to be full of ridiculous lies like it being used for human cloning, or a website on birth control methods that disseminates misinformation about how condoms are actually useless against things like HIV.

Or, for that matter, misinformation on stuff like the LHC, or other similar science-related stuff.

And the problem with so-called knowing better is that it's really hard to find the correct information on things like this. It's the whole problem. Not that people don't have the mindset, but because they don't know what source of information to trust because there's no way to verify it!

All I'm talking about is, again, the whole idea of sticking a little banner or sticker that lets you know it's a source you can trust. That can be done cheaply and easily by a non-profit private organization, let's people know it's a safe source of information, and otherwise doesn't do anything. It's not that big a deal to do, and it would be a good little service.

You cannot do everyone's thinking for them. True, disinformation abounds on the internet but it is a FREE flow of disinformation. Such systems as you describe would not apply to physical books, Oprah, O'Reilly, Olbermann, NPR, AP, or BBC.

What needs to be done starts on a personal level. YOU need to brush up on YOUR critical thinking skills and investigate the information you are about to act upon. Whether it is political, health related, or business you are in control of the information you act upon. All you wish to do is provide another set of crutches for people to blame when they act stupidly.

All in all, a very terrible idea.

No, I'm not. I'm not saying that at all.

People definitely need to be taught critical thinking skills, and I encourage that extensively.

I'm putting this as a separate, additional idea of something that can be done to help. I'm not saying it's the only thing to do. I'm not saying it's extremely valuable that it needs to be done immediately. I'm not saying that if we don't do the world will explode or anything else you're making me out to say.

I'm just saying it's a good idea that ought to be done. That's it, that's all. Please stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

No, I'm not. I'm not saying that at all.

People definitely need to be taught critical thinking skills, and I encourage that extensively.

I'm putting this as a separate, additional idea of something that can be done to help. I'm not saying it's the only thing to do. I'm not saying it's extremely valuable that it needs to be done immediately. I'm not saying that if we don't do the world will explode or anything else you're making me out to say.

I'm just saying it's a good idea that ought to be done. That's it, that's all. Please stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

But the real information is out there already. How is this any different other than you promising REAL information and facts? Many sites to investigative work already and I see no sign of people stopping their belief in bullshit.

the thinking of cults can spread very rapidly and suddenly a cult which was 12 people who had some deep personal issues suddenly find a formula which is very believable
Isn't that how Christianity started?

But the real information is out there already. How is this any different other than you promising REAL information and facts? Many sites to investigative work already and I see no sign of people stopping their belief in bullshit.

True.

The problem is that oftentimes finding the real information is extremely difficult, if not impossible. The examples I've used are only examples, and there are tons upon tons of bits of misinformation out there on just about every single subject in existence.

Still, I've been thinking about it--and been prodded by Poliwanacraca--to realize there are some faults with the idea. How do we ensure that the organizations that might take this idea up aren't just representing their own interests? How do we stop a thousand different ones from springing up? What criteria do we use? Etc etc.

That doesn't stop it from being a nice idea, but it is fraught with problems.

A scientist decrying free publishing? Ridiculous.

All I'm talking about is, again, the whole idea of sticking a little banner or sticker that lets you know it's a source you can trust.
Should Pedowikia get one?

It's a difficult one.

Overall I'd rather there was no formal system, I think the truth comes out far quicker as much as disinformation spreads quicker these days.

It ties into anonymity on the web, which I also support, I just think it provides a platform for greater diffusion of all information and, as stated above, it's often up to us to discern the better information.

You cannot do everyone's thinking for them. True, disinformation abounds on the internet but it is a FREE flow of disinformation. Such systems as you describe would not apply to physical books, Oprah, O'Reilly, Olbermann, NPR, AP, or BBC.

What needs to be done starts on a personal level. YOU need to brush up on YOUR critical thinking skills and investigate the information you are about to act upon. Whether it is political, health related, or business you are in control of the information you act upon. All you wish to do is provide another set of crutches for people to blame when they act stupidly.

All in all, a very terrible idea.

I agree. But even books can be wrong. Just because something is published dosnt make it true.

Overall there is no full proof source. The best you can do is work out who wrote it and why. This goes for anything such as books, radio, tv and the internet.

If you want something that is as accurate as possible look for a peer reviewed journal. But then again you will need to make sure it is up to date at the theories keep on changing.

As a starter anything you find on the internet should have a reference to a decent research article or web site. If not treat it solely as an opinion (ie bias)

A scientist decrying free publishing? Ridiculous.

Why ? Peer review is a central part of the self-correction mechanism of the scientific method.

Why ? Peer review is a central part of the self-correction mechanism of the scientific method.

Free publishing (ie web-pages) is the ultimate in "peer review."

Critics do not have to satisfy a publisher, to review your work.

And ... what Barringtonia said. People need to think for themselves, you can't make them do it and you can't substitute an "approved by ..." label for critical thinking.

Well I can imagine the handing out of the "approval seals" to be very biased and only to things which the government/people agree with.

Stuff like that.

Why ? Peer review is a central part of the self-correction mechanism of the scientific method.

I'll reply again, to give you a choice since sadly you went offline since my last. (Er, during it more likely, but ...)

Certainly, peer review is vital. All "peers" should be heard ... but what is a "peer"? Someone of roughly equal academic qualifications, of roughly equal recognition in the field ...

BUT, who judges this? Why the fuck should it be the publishers of academic works?

It should be anyone. Quite simply, anyone. Nobody, regardless of their academic qualifications, regardless of their reputation as a prankster or a savant, should be excluded from "reviewing" the published work of a scientist.

It they cannot answer fools, they cannot answer for their beliefs at all.

Now is not the time for us to turn sentimental about "true science," about some Scientific Principle which was taught to us as infants, an innoculation against preventable and debilitating Religion.

No, we lift it up on our strong young shoulders and carry it on. We don't clutch onto it for support, and drown with it as Christians are drowning with their weak principle of "freedom of choice."

We get in the ring, we do our science, and we win or lose. Don't forget that we could lose.

Well I can imagine the handing out of the "approval seals" to be very biased and only to things which the government/people agree with. \

Well, exactly. It's like AOL (who tried to sell their customers a "Best Of" of the Internet) and it's like McCarthy (Who tried to censor everything that might be even a bit Communist -- with us or against us.)

You're quite right. The mechanism to decide what is, or is not, approved scientific wisdom is a step beyond Science, into Dictatorship.

Stuff like that.

Don't be shy : )

As long as they don't try and take my porn.

think the net would die with out porn on it

think the net would die with out porn on it

There would be one website left, demanding porn be returned to the interwebs.

there's a pandemic of misinformation out there. Something needs to be done about it, and I think this is the fairest way.
Why does anything need to be done about it?

There's erroneous information out there, sure, but then again there are myriad newspapers, TV shows and books that also spout forth rubbish and paint it as Truth. If anything, the 'net is a 'safer' place to access this material since you have access to refutations at your fingertips at the same time.

The only thing that should be done about it by any government-level initiative, in my opinion, is to ensure that people are educated enough that they are capable of reading things critically; that they are able to go and seek out further information if they read something that they want to know more about, or that doesn't ring true; that they do not simply take things on faith from a single source, etc.


... Common sense and a buyer-beware attitude will.

Do you buy from online sites without a secure connection? No, of course not. If you want to know whether or not that email from Nigeria really is legitimate, can you find out? Hell, yes! Is it a good idea to ever give your private information to a unknown entity? Of course not!

The people that get taken in by the scams on the internet are the same ones that have always been susceptible... They want something for nothing. No amount of protection is going to block that mindset. The rest of us are more cautious.

it's often up to us to discern the better information.

These are the truth. It's the people who buy into ridiculous things hook, line and sinker that are the problem, not the free expression of the ridiculous ideas themselves.

Let's not even touch the fact that validating the content of the Web is impossible simply due to its sheer scale, or that producing some kind of national 'truthiness' rating system (by any individual nation) would serve no real purpose outside its borders.

Scientific misinformation is entertaining and is a wonderful source of Vitamin C. :)

I'll reply again, to give you a choice since sadly you went offline since my last. (Er, during it more likely, but ...)

Certainly, peer review is vital. All "peers" should be heard ... but what is a "peer"? Someone of roughly equal academic qualifications, of roughly equal recognition in the field ...

BUT, who judges this? Why the fuck should it be the publishers of academic works?

It should be anyone. Quite simply, anyone. Nobody, regardless of their academic qualifications, regardless of their reputation as a prankster or a savant, should be excluded from "reviewing" the published work of a scientist.


I disagree. Yes, once a work is published, anyone should, and indeed does have the right to comment on said work. Rebuttals are published, newspaper articles are written etc...

But peer reviewers at the pre-publishing stage are chosen from the academic field because they have the appropriate knowledge base and expertise to understand and comment on the methodology used and the theoretical background and people without the appropriate academic training just can't do that to the same degree. Academic peer reviews are there to ensure that they analysis is correct and not flawed, the math is right, the method was correctly applied in such a way that the results do not become biased or invalid.

I am an intelligent person and I can generally understand what most scientific findings are telling me even wayyy outside my field. But since i do not have the requisit background in physics or biology, I am reliant on trusting that the scientist did his investigation right. I have no ability to comment on his calclutations/statistical procedures or on if he should have used this type of analysis over another. Hell, even in my own field, psychology, I would feel uncomfortable peer reviewing a paper in cognitive psychology say because I simply do not know the theoretical background well enough.

Academic peer reviews are there for an important reason and perform a vital purpose, to ensure the science is sound and this requires reviewers who understand the methods and theoretical background involved.

There would be one website left, demanding porn be returned to the interwebs.
life support website for all of the net till the return of porn :p

Scientific misinformation is entertaining and is a wonderful source of Vitamin C. :)

I think we should sticker that statement as 100% true!

It should be anyone. Quite simply, anyone. Nobody, regardless of their academic qualifications, regardless of their reputation as a prankster or a savant, should be excluded from "reviewing" the published work of a scientist.

It they cannot answer fools, they cannot answer for their beliefs at all.

Define "reviewing". For the more advanced parts of e.g. physics and biology a review would require a quite thorough grasp of mathematics or underlying theory, which is hard to come by without having the appropiate education. Saying "I cannot understand it, therefor it is wrong" is appealing to an awful lot of people, but that does not make you right.

But indeed- credentials are not what matters. It is the underlying reasoning that is. If one can provide it - hurrah.

Which then leads to the problem of liars. How will you know who tells the truth if you cannot understand the reasoning ?

...
Certainly, peer review is vital. All "peers" should be heard ... but what is a "peer"? Someone of roughly equal academic qualifications, of roughly equal recognition in the field ...

BUT, who judges this? Why the fuck should it be the publishers of academic works?

It should be anyone. Quite simply, anyone. Nobody, regardless of their academic qualifications, regardless of their reputation as a prankster or a savant, should be excluded from "reviewing" the published work of a scientist.

It they cannot answer fools, they cannot answer for their beliefs at all.

...
Depends on the intended audience. If I'm writing a highly technical paper on microwave technology, I don't want to dumb it down so that the facilities guys can understand it. Technical language exists because it's precise. On the other hand, if I'm writing about a particular application of microwaves for Popular Science, I do want the average high school student to understand.

In one case, I want to advance the science. In the other, I want to make science interesting.

I think your approach is a little too egalitarian. You clearly understand peers, their purpose is to make sure crap isn't published. Not everyone has the education to understand everything in print, nor should they.

And ... what Barringtonia said. People need to think for themselves, you can't make them do it and you can't substitute an "approved by ..." label for critical thinking.

I don't think that's what Kyronea was getting at. Critical thinking, of course, is a must. However, even with the best critical thinking skills in the world, you often also need the right background - and that's something a layman simply doesn't have in many fields.

Your average person doesn't have enough background in biology and medicine, for example, to really separate good sites from bad ones in those subjects (which is probably the reason that some very intelligent friends of mine send me sites they aren't sure about - I have more background in it).

Well I can imagine the handing out of the "approval seals" to be very biased and only to things which the government/people agree with.

Stuff like that.

This would be a problem, but it doesn't make the idea completely useless. I don't think Kyr's idea was ever that people should rely completely upon such labels. It's more of a shortcut.

If you're looking up medical information, and you go to a site that a credible medical association has fact-checked and put their seal on, it's likely more reliable than an unchecked site. Of course, if that medical association has financial ties to a given drug company and the website is telling you how awesome a new drug is, that's going to be fishy.

I don't think that's what Kyronea was getting at. Critical thinking, of course, is a must. However, even with the best critical thinking skills in the world, you often also need the right background - and that's something a layman simply doesn't have in many fields.

Your average person doesn't have enough background in biology and medicine, for example, to really separate good sites from bad ones in those subjects (which is probably the reason that some very intelligent friends of mine send me sites they aren't sure about - I have more background in it).



Yes! Yes, that's it, exactly.

They should just make rules on TV or journalism like they have for doctors where a person isn't allowed to claim to be a doctor when endorsing a product unless they actually are.

So fox news cites a "scientist" opposed to global warming, if he is going to be referred to as a scientist, he must have completed at least a MSc from an accredited institution and if he is being called as a credible expert in this subject area, he must have completed it in this subject (so none of this crap getting computer scientists to claim that evolution is bunk or people with PhDs in theology pointing out that they're a Dr when they do the same). If a news entity breaks these rules online, they are subject to fines issued by the country in which they are based.

Well, in general, if an institution proclaims itself to be a news source, it should be subject to some fact checking and it should be fined if it does not check facts or prints/broadcasts things which are misleading or outright lies unless it is explicitly marked as an opinion piece.

Damn! That's an end to me as the news source.