But even with large corporations, how far would you go and what is considered a bias?I buy Apple laptops for the irrational reason that I find them pretty. I am biased towards spending money on items I find aesthetically pleasing. Should Apple be banned from making pretty laptops? Should they be legally restrained from overpricing their products because it creates a possibly unwarrented impression that they are "premium" to people susceptable to that bias.
Just about everything we do has some component of persuasion or an appeal to biases. It's a huge can of worms.
What's a monopoly? What is a business expense? What's NSFW? There are lots of gray areas in regulation, to the point where ambiguity is more the rule than the exception. This is just another aspect of complex behavior that, now that we see it abused, we realize we need to regulate.
Draw it anywhere and keep tweaking until you find the right balance. Some things are obviously bad, while others are obviously good. Put the line somewhere in the grey area on between and tweak as needed until you find the right balance.
Definitely not easy, but probably doable to a certain extent.
It’s was already drawn in 1789. It’s far worse to accidentally suppress the truth than to share a lie. Falsehoods will reveal themselves in time because of the very fact that they are not true. The opposite is not the case. There are infinite lies but only one truth
You're making this too easy for yourself. Modern communication technology didn't exist in 1789, and the truth can be difficult to determine for people -- even scientific truth. Outrage cycles are very powerful.
Clearly suppressing a truth is bad. But modern technology causes massive amplification of falsehoods in a way that just didn't exist in the past, and that's bad, too.
The format of communication is irrelevant. At the end of the day, I make my own decisions and so does everyone else. You cannot suppress the bad out of life because its humans that cause the bad by accident or on purpose. Why are people so worried about proving a false hood is it that hard for you? You need to run and hide from a difficult conversation? How do you ever expect to change your mind oh yeah you want the government to make them. You’re motivated by hate against a fictitious enemy of the past because it makes it easier to justify your extremely pitiful fortitude
From a libertarian, individualistic perspective, there is much in what you say. But telling people off for being easily persuadable isn't a viable solution. You have to deal with people as they really are, not as you wish them to be.
From a utilitarian perspective, fake news and persuasive technologies do real harm, and not just to the people who are persuaded. Unless something is done at the group level (i.e. by the state) the harm will continue. You might consider that an appropriate trade-off for liberty, but others can reasonably disagree without being weak.
It’s far worse to accidentally suppress the truth than to share a lie. Falsehoods will reveal themselves in time because of the very fact that they are not true.
A lot has changed since 1789, and there is no reason not to re-examine the assumptions that were made then in light of technological developments over the past two centuries plus.
Just about everything we do has some component of persuasion or an appeal to biases. It's a huge can of worms.