
Nobody will recognize the authority of the Internet Court of Lies.
Decide for Yourself
Thanks for this public opinion that nobody will recognized the authority of the Internet Court of Lies.
Hopefully this article resolves why I would disagree that nobody will recognize its authority. Basically, you probably already have recognized this authority, and do all the time, because it helps you all the time. Aside from the Internet Court of Lies case management system itself, there is little new here.
- Regarding authority, the question is what authority? You may confuse this with a legal court — one created by sovereign laws? Do you understand that is not true? Private courts exist everywhere. You need to look to see them. These are courts that enforce public dialogue on a dispute between people where there is a suspected fiat lie by at least one person. Courts as we know them today were developed privately and governmentally worldwide starting about 400 years ago.
- The path of information is: Suit -> Wiki-of-Court-on-Suit (public SuitWiki)-> Wiki-of-Class-Action-on-Suit (public ClassActionWiki) -> Wikipedia Encyclopedia Entry organized under Fiat Lies.
- If you believe that Wikipedia has no recognized authority, then that ends this dialogue with that belief. The case management system records all dialogue, history, messaging, etc., associated with these pages but not the Wikipedia Encyclopedia Entries which are the purview of Wikimedia under their rules for encyclopedia content. (In Wikipedia terms, we do the research, they document the knowledge gained by others research for humanity).
- The human desire the court fills is the ability of anybody and any entity to file a suit for a small amount of money. The suit will survive if the plaintiff follows through the moderated dialogue to reach a pointer to a Wikipedia Encyclopedia Entry (one or more) that characterizes the folk lie adjudicated by the court. The plaintiff always has hard time limits, as do any counter suit plaintiffs (e.g., human defendants). That said, if one or more class-actions are found immediately to apply and any of these already have Wikipedia Entries for them, a suit may be instantly adjudicated if the plaintiff agrees to the settlement.
- If no folk lie is found, the plaintiff suit is still there for further evidence that supports it. (Yes, the moderator is a private arbitrator supplied by the private court — it is not guaranteed to be human, and there may be more than one human arbitrator for the class actions).
- Enforcement is that a suit, if a fiat lie is found to possibly be a folk lie, or certainly a folk lie and resolved all the way to a Wikipedia Entry which meets all of Wikimedia requirements for an encyclopedia entry permanently documenting what is now a type of folk lie. See: https://medium.com/@rhtcmu/on-a-taxonomy-of-lies-3941d575d03
- Remember that nothing in this Wikipedia Entry might actually change, but it might. If you read my book on Amazon, you will see that the public Wiki pages permanently document the fiat lie suit and finding. That is what I refer to as “internet jail for the lie.”
- The person bringing the suit against the fiat lie can now document that finding, particularly if it harmed him in his own opinion. But this is outside the scope of the Internet Court of Lies to make any such judgement. Any plaintiff is anonymous unless he chooses not to be. The liar is also anonymous by default unless his lie happened to expose who he is, or the moderated dialogue on intent and motivation with evidence exposed him/her/it because the liar exposed himself in the accepted evidence, such as identified news media reports).
- The jurisdiction of this private court is the whole Internet although obviously any sovereign state can choose to allow it to operate within their sovereign boundaries. The whole internet still applies to who can file a suit, where the lies, their intent, and motivation can be found, and public access where ever the court is permitted to operate. The court can be regionalized, and, since it is dependent on dialogue in natural language, you have an answer on that regionalization. Like Wikipedia itself, it will continue to expand where Wikipedia (encyclopedias using Wikimedia Wiki’s under Wikipedia rules) expands.
- In actual legal actions, which this court has nothing to do with, it might have enough credibility to be used in a legal court, or help a legal court case in assembling its evidence. The Internet Court of Lies publishes its rules much like Wikipedia publishes its rules. The WikiSuits and WikiClassActions are NOT Wikipedia pages…technically they are privately owned publicly available under copyright Wikimedia Wiki pages.
If you go into the detail of filing a suit, you would find that the plaintiff has to supply evidence for his suspicion that a lie has been told, including his suspicion, if any, that the liar knows it is a lie, and what his/her/its motivation may have been. This includes a trail back to the original liar, again with evidence, if the plaintiff can. The burden is on the plaintiff who by default is also anonymous unless he/she/it has also chosen not to be anonymous.
So, yes, all this court does is bring the light of evidence on a fiat lie in order to convert it to a folk lie that is put to public dialogue.
The wikipedia entry pointed to is publicly indexed through Wikipedia. But the suit and court’s wikipedia entry that identify and classify the specific lie are provided by the private Internet Court of Lies under license to social media that can refer a lie to a Wikipedia entry under the Courts’ copyright of its private links. These are organized to make it easy for social media to be notified, or for it to search on a lie the social media company suspects, or has been alerted to by a plaintiff.
In effect, this a truly privately run public court that only tries lies, not people, and only puts the light of moderated public dialogue on the fiat lies in order to have them understood as folk lies. To the extent that truth, intent, and motive can be documented in the public dialogue process, the Court gains authority. A suit will continue indefinitely unless a suit is explicitly removed by decision of the Court.
As the book says, Politifact, The New York Times, FactCheck, and so on are referenced in these court suits. The Internet Court of Lies is NOT a fact checking or truth checking organization except as it may pertain to dialogue on the pages it owns for the purposes of dialogue moderation.
The existing fact checking organizations do a great job. Our job is to provide a way that people can get fast satisfaction of their desire to expose a liar, do the work in assembling evidence, and pay of the costs of the court to moderate and keep publicly available records some of which are licensed for use by social media and research organizations.
