>The very same people that are for these types of rules have abandoned it. With things like "there is no one truth, only my truth" believing that there is more than 1 "truth"
Who are you quoting?
>It has never been the case that you should trust anyone. No Twitter, or the new agencies or anyone. This is why people should be encouraged to look at original sources and multiple sources. This is also why in the age of everyone having only "anonymous sources said" is a huge problem.
So what you're saying is, people should trust "original" sources and "multiple" sources.
But original sources can be misleading, deceptive or have ulterior motives, so how do you verify their authenticity without trusting a third party?
And if no single source can be trusted, how can you trust multiple sources? Surely all sources are equally untrustworthy, even if they all report the same events. How do you verify that a commonly reported narrative is not simply well orchestrated propaganda?
It has always been the case that trust is necessary. Before the internet, people trusted the news. Before television, people trusted newspapers, radio and newsreels. People trust Einstein, Bohr, Newton, Darwin, Euclid without personally doing the necessary experiments to rediscover the entire corpus of modern scientific thought from first principles. Before the printing press and the Enlightenment, people trusted the Clergy and town criers.
Subjective truth is always based on implicit trust. Anyone who believes otherwise about themselves is simply unaware of the systems in which they place their faith and from which they form their biases.
>The other problem is most news is just regulations of another outlet or the "news media" takes a single random tweet from some random person and runs 100 nearly duplicated stories sensationalized based on that single account with no verification.
Absurd hyperbole. "most news" is decidedly not unverified claims from random twitter accounts. I'm guessing you've got some specific instance in mind that you're trying to conflate into a general practice, but if you look at the headlines and news from any mainstream source (CNN, Fox, BBC, AlJazeera, what have you) the vast majority are not the sort of sensationalized, unverified, Twitter-based stories you're describing.
>This has been tried many many times before, it always fails and this too will fail
Do you have a whitepaper proving that an algorithmic solution to this problem is impossible? If so, let us see it. Otherwise, you're just posturing.