A California senator introduced a bill requiring state-sanctioned fact-checkers to approve online content.
I think it’s a great idea, and I say we phase it in after thoroughly testing it with a pilot program consisting solely of elected officials from high-population Pacific coastal states.
“I’m from the government and I approve this propaganda.”
Hmm now. “State-Sanctioned” is too long, maybe it could be shortened to initials.
Boom, boom, boom!! Open za door old mon!!!
Jack-booted progs.
I mean thugs.
Who am I kidding?
I mean progs.
Getting back to your “Boom, boom, boom!!” . . .
The online censorship theme song:
They could be assigned to make judgements on online content, but they would be more effective if they could target the people who posted the content instead of just the content itself.
It would be more efficient to get them while they are posting the content, not after they have already polluted the internet by posting it, though.
With scientific methods, it should even be possible to get to them before they post the content. This would be far more effective.
A government-empowered socially trustworthy anti-propaganda organization. Needs a catchy acronym.
There’s a shorter term for “state-sanctioned fact-checking of online content”: censoring.
On the bright side since they are government workers they will probably end up watching online pr0n all day to see if any of the b00bs are fake or not.
There is much truth, not just satire, in that.
I was trying find a way to ask if people wanted their DMV or RMV workers to make the decisions, but your observation comes nearer to the truth.