On February 8, Wikipedia editors unanimously voted to ban The Daily Mail from being used as a factual reference in their articles. The editors stated that the tabloid has a “reputation for poor fact checking and sensationalism” and is “generally unreliable.”

The ban comes at a time when the credibility of online sources is under heavy scrutiny. However, in the age of “alternative facts” and “fake news,” it’s hotly contested what constitutes credibility.

While misinformation ought to be combated, it is unclear who should lead the fight. In response to widespread concern over the reliability of internet sources, numerous organizations have announced plans aimed at curbing the proliferation of misinformation.

Having previously denied any editorial responsibility over what is shared through their respective sites, Google and Facebook have since announced efforts to prevent the spread of false stories. Both of the internet giants have promised to ban sites found guilty of publishing false stories from using their ad services.

Facebook is piloting a program that would allow users to report stories they believe to be fake, and has also announced plans to team up with major media outlets to fact check circulating stories. Meanwhile, the BBC has established a team whose mission is to “cut through the spin and concentrate on the facts.”

The degree to which these measures will reduce the spread of falsities remains to be seen. However, it is likely some corners of the internet will cry foul regardless of the outcome.

The term “fake news” lost meaning as quickly as it entered the public lexicon. At first, “fake news” meant exactly what it sounds like it means. The likes of President Trump and his followers have since co-opted the term to refer to any news outlet or piece that does not confirm their biases.

While Trump is an extreme example of someone stuck in an echo chamber, many are guilty of mistaking “credibility” with “agreeability.” Before tackling the issue of credibility, there must be some sort of consensus on what it means to be credible. We as a society must also be careful of who we allow to lead this discussion.

The internet is at an ethical impasse. The spread of misinformation is undoubtedly dangerous. Nevertheless, trusting organizations like Facebook and Google to decide what constitutes fact could be a mistake. No matter how good their intentions may seem, Facebook and Google are entities with their own independent agendas.

An outlet does not necessarily need to lie in order to misinform or to craft a narrative bias. Selecting truths can be just as damaging as spreading lies. How can we trust that these newly implemented editorial policies aimed at stemming lies won’t later be used to curate truths? In fighting misinformation, it is important that we do not carelessly privilege the ability to define and police “credibility.”

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Internet’s Fight Against Fake News appeared first on Law Street.

Shortly after refiling a $150 million defamation lawsuit involving claims that she worked for an escort service, Melania Trump has reached a settlement with one of the defendants named in her original defamation suit.

According to Trump’s lawyers, Maryland-based blogger Webster Tarpley–who published the escort claims on his website Tarpley.net–has “agreed to pay her a substantial sum as a settlement.” However, the specific amount of money remains unknown.

Tarpley wrote an article including the escort rumor in August, but had retracted it before Trump sued him in September. The article also included claims that she suffered from a nervous breakdown

Additionally, Trump’s suit named Mail Media, the company that owns the British newspaper Daily Mail, which printed similar rumors. Though a Montgomery County Circuit Court  judge dismissed the Daily Mail case on February 2, because the case does not fall under that court’s jurisdiction, Trump was allowed to move forward with the Tarpley suit.

On February 6, she re-filed the suit against the Daily Mail in New York, where Mail Media has corporate offices. In the suit, Trump claims that the article hurt her potential business interests, including the opportunity to “launch a broad-based commercial brand” that would sell clothes, accessories, and cosmetics.

Trump’s actions have attracted criticism for ethical reasons. Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under George W. Bush, told the Washington Post: “There has never been a first lady of the United States who insinuated that she intended to make a lot of money because of the ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ opportunity of being first lady.”

Painter is among a group of lawyers currently suing President Donald Trump for allowing his businesses to receive money from foreign governments, which they say violates the Constitution and poses a conflict of interest.

The First Lady and her husband have a history of threatening media outlets with legal action. In October, Donald Trump vowed to sue the New York Times for libel when they published an article about two women alleging he had groped them. On the campaign trail, he pledged to loosen libel laws to make suing media outlets easier.

After a writer for People published an article about being sexually harassed by Donald Trump, Melania Trump tweeted at the magazine that she would “consider her legal options” over details from the story that she claimed were false.

! @people #NatashaStoynoff pic.twitter.com/zXNm6boveP

— MELANIA TRUMP (@MELANIATRUMP) October 13, 2016

Representing Trump in her libel cases is Charles Harder, the same attorney who helped wrestler Hulk Hogan win $140 million in his defamation case against Gawker Media, an outcome that resulted in Gawker declaring bankruptcy and shutting down.

Lawsuits like Hogan’s and now Trump’s spark fears about allowing wealthy individuals to cripple media organizations with costly legal proceedings, a precedent that could endanger the Freedom of the Press.

But the Trumps don’t always go to court with the intention of winning. In July, a USA Today report found that Donald Trump didn’t proceed with most of the defamation lawsuits he filed.

Evan Mascagni, a policy director at the Public Participation Project, told the outlet:

Donald Trump has repeatedly attempted to silence his critics over the years through frivolous lawsuits. If you really examine some of these cases, it becomes pretty obvious that Trump didn’t file these suits to seek justice. Rather, he filed them to intimidate, harass and silence his critics.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Melania Trump Settles With One Defendant in Defamation Battle appeared first on Law Street.