Part 3 of our discussion on FakeNews, hosted with support from Mint. Part 1 | Part 2 Where does the responsibility and accountability lie for content, and how who is held accountable and how? The Internet is both communication and publishing, and regulating content creators is tricky without curbing free speech. How do you treat people who share fake news differently from those who create it? Should there be regulation? How do you ensure that the safe harbour, which provides amnesty for intermediaries and platforms, and has led to the growth of the Internet, is retained? During the #NAMApolicy discussion on Fake News, Rumours and Online content regulation, we looked into both technology and legal means of addressing Fake News. We shouldn't be looking at Fake News as a monolith. Nasr Ul Hadi, ICFJ Knight Fellow, suggested that we consider deal with different types of fake news differently: - User generated misinformation "which is rumours, or citizen journalism that has gotten it wrong"..."Which part of the stakeholders can potentially sort this? One is platform, by scoring or giving a verified kind of a tick." - Publisher endorsed misinformation: "when a publisher is getting information wrong. Did it start at wires, did it get picked up without corroboration? Or getting it from a source"..."What you also need to look at is that newsrooms don't have the bandwidth to corroborate everything that is flowing through their pipeline. Your also need better processes and frameworks." - Organised misinformation generation: "for which you need legal…
