It’s the energy, stupid: How to fix social media’s misinformation problem.

NOTE: For the purposes of this article, we’ll define misinformation as false or inaccurate information and lying as intentionally sharing misinformation while implying otherwise. In other words, if you’re misinforming someone and you know it, you’re a liar. (Sounds harsh, I know.)

Lying is easy. The truth is hard.

Lying is considered a lazy act, and for good reason. Lies aren’t bound by reality or facts. When you’re lying, you’ve got options — lots of them. Lies are also messier and less organized than the truth. All of which explains why lying takes less energy, at least in the short term.

In contrast, because the truth is bound by reality, it can only be certain things, a.k.a. “the facts.” Think of a safe. There’s only one combination of numbers that will unlock it and countless combinations that won’t. The truth is similar.

The truth is also more complex and orderly than lies. All of which explains why extracting and upholding the truth — literally and figuratively — demands a lot more energy. It’s hard work, sometimes formidably so.

It all comes down to energy.

People often use the phrase “barrier to entry.” For instance, “this lame club I belong to sure has a low barrier to entry!” Or, “brain surgery is a career with a high barrier to entry.”

Ultimately, a “barrier to entry” is an energy cost. Everything in the universe has an energy cost. Getting out of bed requires the expenditure of energy (more or less depending on how you’re positioned in bed and how heavy you are, etc.), as does reading this sentence, as will taking your next breath, as does getting on the internet, and so on.

Getting on the internet has a relatively low energy cost. For instance, you may have expended a lot of energy to earn a degree so you could get a job so you could work enough hours so you could earn enough money to buy a laptop, smartphone and internet connection so you could get on social media. Whew! What a taxing journey, right?

On the other hand, you can use your degree, phone and internet connection for a myriad of other applications, thereby spreading out your energy costs. This makes the cost of any one act — say, making a post on Facebook or Twitter— a lot lower. So low, in fact, that you may hardly give it any thought.

Aye, and there’s the rub.

The low energy cost of #MakingShitUp or failing to adequately verify the accuracy of your information, combined with the low energy cost of distributing it online, makes the internet a hotbed for lying and misinformation. Making matters worse is the fact that humans love, love, love stories. Facts? Not so much.

Tax, Lies & Social Media

All of which brings us to the unavoidable solution to the internet’s lying problem: Taxation. To grossly paraphrase James Otis of Boston Tea Party fame, “without taxation, there will be misrepresentation” — misrepresentation of the facts. (Sorry, James. I couldn’t resist.)

To repeat, everything in the universe has an energy cost attached to it. Thus, the only way to fix the lying problem is to tax lies sufficiently to make the energy cost of distributing them greater than that of the truth. In other words, we need to make the pursuit of the truth the path of least resistance.

Yes, though your economics teacher probably didn’t tell you, taxation has an energy connection. Indeed, a tax in the financial sense is really just a fee intended to change behavior by raising the energy cost of an activity. Thus, there’s no two ways about it. If we want fewer lies, we need to tax lying in some way, shape or form.

I was going to end this article here to keep it nice and brief. But I thought you might enjoy it more if I left you with some specific suggestions for how to actually go about taxing lies. So put on your futurist hat and strap yourself in so we can talk about…

A Futuristic Solution: Truth-Seeking Algo

One way of taxing lies would be to use a computer algorithm to do it — a “truth algo,” if you will. Creating such a technology would be far from easy. Like any solution, it will not be perfect. Like any machine, it will not be 100% efficient. For instance, even the best truth algo will mistakenly scoop up some lies while overlooking some facts, not to mention other potential concerns. #BlackMirror

Also, since the truth is more costly to extract and uphold than lies, and, being reality-bound, it can be expressed in far fewer ways, a “misinformation-light” internet universe will have a lot less content. But that’s the “cost” of doing business when you choose to be bound by reality, right?

So how is using a truth algo a tax?

Think of all of the workers required to create an algorithm, from designing and manufacturing the supercomputer that runs it, to the programming of the algo itself, and everything in between. It entails many mental and physical tasks, all of which consume energy. Then there are the ongoing energy costs of operating the algo, chiefly, processing all of the content (i.e. data). Energy costs money. People cost money. Raw materials cost money. Thus, creating and operating a truth algo is very much a tax, whether it’s levied on internet users like you or I directly or indirectly. There’s no free lunch, particularly when you order the triple-decker truth sandwich.

A Truth Algo Would Have Many Positive Knock-On Effects

A truth algo may seem far-fetched. Impossible? Time will tell. In the meantime, it’s interesting to briefly consider some of the positive knock-on effects one could have.

Imagine a truth algo scanning the internet ocean 24/7, “purifying” it by filtering out lies and misinformation. Countless jobs rely on the internet. With less (unwanted) fiction to wade through online, the gears of our economy would encounter less friction. #FictionIsFriction. The same could be said for our democratic process.

(At this point, it may have occurred to you that once we’ve figured out how to build a truth algo for the internet, well, it’s not that big a step from there to…Exactly. Perhaps that’s a discussion for another article.)

The “Lie Tax”

No, a truth algo definitely won’t come cheap. Hundreds of billions of dollars? More?

You could offset some of the costs by using it to tax individuals directly — a “lie tax,” if you will. For instance, if the algo determines that I’ve tweeted a lie, it could tax me by withdrawing funds directly from my bank account. If I’m a compulsive liar, and the tax is steep enough, this could get costly. Eventually, I’ll curb my habit.

Some might say a lie tax is “regressive,” hitting those at the lowest end of the wealth spectrum the hardest. The rich, meanwhile, could afford to lie much more. Great point. Again, no solution is perfect.

The “Truth Bonus” (“Reverse Lie Tax”) and the Virtuous Circle

Alternatively, or in addition to a lie tax, you could offset some of the costs of a truth algo by paying people for the truth — a “truth bonus.” Because you’re essentially taxing liars (or “misinformers”) by omission, you could also call it a “reverse lie tax.”

People like money, so a truth bonus would presumably encourage truth seekers to do more of the same. As their “truth ranks” climbed on social media, they’d be encouraged further still, and so on. It would give a whole new meaning to “Virtuous Circle.”

You can imagine how this might be viewed by prospective employers. “Oh, I see you’ve harvested a lot of truth this year, Jamie! We need people like you in our company.” Of course, there will also be negative effects. (“Bill, you’re a spinner of yarns. Pack your things and go yonder.”)

There will always be people who say, “This truth algo thing is too Big Brother for me. Besides, it’s not fair if people get paid for the truth. Not everyone has the same access to information.” Another great point. And again, no solution is perfect. Besides, what’s the alternative?

When you don’t have a Truth Algo: The “Entry Tax”

One alternative, and the last solution on my list today, is an “entry tax.” Whereas we’d need a truth algo to properly enforce a lie tax or truth bonus, an entry tax has no such requirement. As the term implies, this is a fee you pay to gain access to a social-media platform or some other realm of the internet. In other words, it adds to your energy cost.

An entry tax is a much blunter instrument than a lie tax or truth bonus. Indeed, once you’ve moved past the energy barrier it represents by paying it, you’re free to lie as much as you want. On the other hand, if users encounter too many lies on the platform, they may soon leave. Still, it’s not as efficient as taxing individuals directly.

Another problem with an entry tax is that many users will just choose to join a “tax-free” platform instead, if one’s available and enough people are on it. This is where government regulation can help, by requiring that all platforms levy an entry tax. But how much of a tax is enough to curb lying and misinformation? For some people, $50 a year may be more than enough. For the fibbers in the audience, it may not even be close. (“If I ain’t lyin’, I’m dyin’!”)

Final Thought: We’re already being taxed for lies and misinformation.

Here’s one final thought before you go. While some readers may question the value or ethics of taxation in solving the internet’s lying and misinformation problem, keep in mind that we’re already being taxed for it, often heavily so.

Every time we get online and wade through the muck of lies and misinformation, we’re being taxed, whether we realize it or not. Every time we have to deal with the consequences of lies and misinformation — many of which can be quite profound and even a matter of life or death — we’re being taxed, whether we realize it or not.

So maybe it’s time we actively took control of such taxation and created a system that serves our collective advantage, rather than renders us slaves to it?