> This assumes the limiting factor is content generation, not ability to read and verify.
Content generation is the thing copyright applies to. If you want to create a reward system for verification, it's not going to look anything like that.
It mostly looks like things we already have, like laws against pretending you're someone else to trade on their reputation so that people can build a reputation as trustworthy and make money from subscriptions or ads by being the one people to turn to when they want trustworthy information.
> However, people are happy to consume unverified content which suits their needs. This is why you always needed to subsidize newspapers with ads or classifieds.
I suspect the real problem here is the voting thing. When people derive significant value from information they're quite willing to pay for it. Wall St. pays a lot of money for Bloomberg terminals, companies pay to do R&D or market research, individuals often pay for financial software or games and entertainment content etc.
But voting is a collective action problem. Your vote isn't very likely to change the outcome so are you personally going to spend a lot of money to make sure it's informed? For most people the answer is going to be no, so we need something that gives them access to high quality information at minimal cost if we want them to be informed.
Annoyingly one of the common methods of mitigating collective action problems (government funding) has a huge perverse incentive here because the primary thing we want people to be informed about is political issues and official misconduct, so you can't give the incumbent politicians the purse strings for the same reason the First Amendment proscribes them from governing speech.
So you need a way to fund quality reporting the public can access for free. Advertising kind of fit but it never really aligned the incentives. You can often get more views by being entertaining or inflammatory than factual.
The question is basically, who can you get to supply money to fund factual reporting for everyone, whose interest is for it to be accurate rather than biased in favor of the funder's interests? Or, if that's not a thing, whose interests are fairly aligned with those of the general public? Because with that you can use a patronage model, i.e. the content is free to everyone but patrons choose to pay money because they want the work to be done more than they want to not pay.
The obvious answer for "who" is then "the middle class" because they're not so poor they can't pay a few bucks while still consisting of a large diverse group that won't collectively refuse to fund many classes of important reporting. But then we need two things. The first is for the middle class to not get hollowed out, which we're not doing a great job with right now.
And the second is to have a cultural norm where doing this is a thing, i.e. stop teaching people illiterate false dichotomy nonsense where the only two economic camps are "Soviet Communism" in which the government is required to solve everything through central planning and "greed is good" where being altruistic makes you a doofus for not spending all your money on blackjack and cocaine. People rather need to be encouraged to notice that once their basic needs are met, wanting to live in a better world is just as valid a use for free time and disposable income as designer shoes or golf.
Content generation is the thing copyright applies to. If you want to create a reward system for verification, it's not going to look anything like that.
It mostly looks like things we already have, like laws against pretending you're someone else to trade on their reputation so that people can build a reputation as trustworthy and make money from subscriptions or ads by being the one people to turn to when they want trustworthy information.
> However, people are happy to consume unverified content which suits their needs. This is why you always needed to subsidize newspapers with ads or classifieds.
I suspect the real problem here is the voting thing. When people derive significant value from information they're quite willing to pay for it. Wall St. pays a lot of money for Bloomberg terminals, companies pay to do R&D or market research, individuals often pay for financial software or games and entertainment content etc.
But voting is a collective action problem. Your vote isn't very likely to change the outcome so are you personally going to spend a lot of money to make sure it's informed? For most people the answer is going to be no, so we need something that gives them access to high quality information at minimal cost if we want them to be informed.
Annoyingly one of the common methods of mitigating collective action problems (government funding) has a huge perverse incentive here because the primary thing we want people to be informed about is political issues and official misconduct, so you can't give the incumbent politicians the purse strings for the same reason the First Amendment proscribes them from governing speech.
So you need a way to fund quality reporting the public can access for free. Advertising kind of fit but it never really aligned the incentives. You can often get more views by being entertaining or inflammatory than factual.
The question is basically, who can you get to supply money to fund factual reporting for everyone, whose interest is for it to be accurate rather than biased in favor of the funder's interests? Or, if that's not a thing, whose interests are fairly aligned with those of the general public? Because with that you can use a patronage model, i.e. the content is free to everyone but patrons choose to pay money because they want the work to be done more than they want to not pay.
The obvious answer for "who" is then "the middle class" because they're not so poor they can't pay a few bucks while still consisting of a large diverse group that won't collectively refuse to fund many classes of important reporting. But then we need two things. The first is for the middle class to not get hollowed out, which we're not doing a great job with right now.
And the second is to have a cultural norm where doing this is a thing, i.e. stop teaching people illiterate false dichotomy nonsense where the only two economic camps are "Soviet Communism" in which the government is required to solve everything through central planning and "greed is good" where being altruistic makes you a doofus for not spending all your money on blackjack and cocaine. People rather need to be encouraged to notice that once their basic needs are met, wanting to live in a better world is just as valid a use for free time and disposable income as designer shoes or golf.