I could see a constitutional amendment barring psycho-graphic profiling from election advertising and intent. Not sure how it could be enforced because this is very technical.
Even so, there is a significant difference between Coke trying to sell me a flavored soft drink and a firm tweaking my emotions to get me to abstain from voting with false information or to vote against my best interests with false information.
There are definitely people who are susceptible to psycho-graphic warfare and we need to protect them in order to protect our democracy.
I don't think "false information" is the kicker here. Taking a cursory glance at Breitbart and Fox News, there isn't that much that is patently false. Furthermore, my observations of how propaganda works in general is that it doesn't usually rely information that is technically false. It relies on selective distribution of information, editorial spin, and other more subtle methods.
This makes "enforcement" basically impossible because you can't have a news outlet without editorial decisions. A better way to go about it would be to try incentivize media outlets to make a good faith effort at "both sides" journalism, but members of both political sides have been attacking the media for doing just that since the 2016 election season.
> Taking a cursory glance at Breitbart and Fox News, there isn't that much that is patently false.
Don't you think it would be better for you to take more than a cursory glance before commenting ?
Breitbart has had significant issues with fake news over its lifetime. Far more egregious and consistent than other any other news organisation not that I would necessarily call it one.
In addition to Fox and Breitbart, the Washington Post, Buzzfeed, CNN, and even the New York Times have had to retract dozens of viral political articles over the last two years. The retractions were only seen by a fraction of the people who saw the original headlines. This is an inevitable result of journalism increasingly relying on rumor and catering to partisan audiences.
Where is this line that should be drawn, and who should draw it? Breitbart may have a higher frequency of “oops someone gave me bad info, or my reporter/editor made an unsubstantiated inference” events, but their audience is much smaller than the large outlets.
Sure, but the parent's point is that even if you got rid of the fake news, you'd still be able to spread plenty of propaganda and sway people. Going after the easy target of "fake news" might feel good, and even do something to help make propaganda less effective, but isn't going to make a huge dent in the problem.
Even so, there is a significant difference between Coke trying to sell me a flavored soft drink and a firm tweaking my emotions to get me to abstain from voting with false information or to vote against my best interests with false information.
There are definitely people who are susceptible to psycho-graphic warfare and we need to protect them in order to protect our democracy.