Evidence

From Internet Court of Lies

Not your Grandfather's Evidence

Courts are convened to enforce moderated dialogue to get at the truth and expose lies.

We have hundreds of years behind The Rules of Evidence in Sovereign Courts that try people. But the Internet Court of Lies is different in two important, and essential ways:

  • It tries Fiat Lies not People. Generally people are anonymous, and, in any event, the purpose of the Court is to characterize the Folk Lie that the Fiat Lie is suspected of being by the Plaintiff.
  • It tries Fiat Lies that appear on the Internet, where the truth is also available on the Internet. This significantly impacts the difficulty in bringing evidence to the Court. In fact, in the Internet Court of Lies, there are no Witnesses, just Plaintiffs and Counter-Plaintiffs who have the burden of proof without Witnesses.

This is a huge improvement in increasing the speed and reducing the cost of Adjudicating a Fiat Lie on the Internet. So, we need to go back to the fundamentals of Truth and the fundamentals of Evidence to decide what counts as good evidence of the Truth. Remember, our objective is to fully adjudicate a case in two weeks, from the time it is filed to the time of first settlement. And that is in Manual mode where a Judge and Jury is convened. In the Automatic mode of the future, we will use existing settled Class suits and Artificial Intelligence to settle a new suit in one or two seconds. Every participant is a witness since the complaint and the evidence presented is, by definition, verifiable on the Internet.

The fundamental of evidence is that you can observe it directly. So, the job of the Plaintiff is to present evidence of the truth and the lie and the Jurors judge that evidence to Judge the lie. Since these are only lies that we are judging, not the actions of people, our evidence is limited to what we can show the juror off the Internet.

That said, we will need to develop Rules of Evidence for what we show from experience with this Court. Right now, we simply say that a Wikipedia entry probably is a good source of truth. Factcheck, Politifact, a number of the most significant news outlets, such as New York Times, or AP, or NPR, are good sources. These will probably carry more weight with a Jury than a blog by an unknown person. Otero's Media Chart is another good source both for truth, and probably fiat lies: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/. The media outfits on the top are more careful with the truth. Medical misinformation and disinformation has its own fact checkers such as retractionwatch.com or quality hospital sites such as mayoclinic.org. All these can be sources of evidence in plain view on the Internet.

It is up to the Plaintiff to make the best case they can. They will provide their view of what they think the judgement should be. The Plaintiff and the Counter Plaintiff both can show the Jury what they think. The Jury can then decide what they think. The Jury, though, defines the settlement, not the Plaintiffs.

Once you see this, I think you will agree, we have a way to fully adjudicate a settlement on a Fiat Lie in a way that is fair and speedy. After filing his case, the Plaintiffs cannot provide new evidence during the trial (or active phase of the suit.) If a Plaintiff finds new evidence he can always try to re-open the suit after its first settlement, and a Judge will look at that evidence and make a judgement as to whether the new evidence is sufficient to re-open the suit.