I don’t want to hear it! You’re wrong, and I want no part of spreading false information. You don’t deserve a platform to advance lies. We gave you a fat contract to contribute to show us your point of view, but our elite talent showed us the error of our ways. Now get out of here and take your misinformation with you. If not the words used by NBC to dump recently hired former Republican National Committee (RNC) Chair Rona McDaniel, it was probably something along these lines. 

What was McDaniel’s sin? She initially supported Trump’s claim that an unfair election deprived him of victory, even though she has since acknowledged that he did lose. NBC’s MSNBC division Major on-air talent joined with others at the Network to proclaim that allowing election deniers and those interfering with elections to have a voice on the Network and its affiliates is verboten.

Of course, this must be news to Stacy Abrams, who refused to concede in her 2018 race for Georgia Governor, claiming “voter suppression” in her many NBC and MSNBC appearances. MSNBC star Rachel Maddowrepeatedly claimed Trump’s collusion with Russia made him an illegitimate president. Jan Psaki peddled the false from former intelligence people the Hunter Biden Laptop was Russian disinformation. None of this is true. NBC and MSNBC seem to have a strange relationship with the truth. Republicans must always tell it, but Democrats or NBC and affiliate employees get a pass. 

Confusing the issue further is many of the things people believe are, in fact, not necessarily so. How often have we heard that income inequality is growing? China caused massive job losses in our manufacturing sector. The rich don’t pay their fair share. Unless we take drastic action, global warming will cause enormous economic loss by the end of the century. Exporters such as those in China pay the tariffs we impose. As I’ve pointed out, though widely believed, these aren’t true.

What makes their acceptance by so many as fact dangerous is that they become the basis for actions. Using them to support your position means building on a weak foundation. If you claim 4+2=5, whatever you’re creating is likely to collapse.

When Elon Musk acquired Twitter, I proposed a challenging system for disputing claims on the platform. Elon opted for “Community Notes” rather than adopt my suggestion. While Notes has had a mixed effect, my proposal was superior.

I’m considering using my suggestions’ salient features in a new website. Identify anything you find misinformation and challenge it by summarizing your objection(s)and linking it to supporting data. When posted, a clock starts and only stops when answered. The clock restarts again until a rebuttal is received. While it might’ve been a stretch for Twitter (Now X ), a dedicated website concentrating controversies in one place should improve discourse across the board.

Anyone can join and participate. If you encounter misinformation, you can post precise statements you wish to challenge, and your rebuttal will include links to supporting data. Once posted in the proper category, a digital clock is started. If possible, notify the person or persons who made the original assertions challenged. 

Those confronted can post their answer. It must directly answer the points in the challenge. It cannot just repeat the original assertions. Here, I would use AI as the gatekeeper. It could ascertain the nature of the challenge and what adds to the discussion. Once accepted, the clock is reset, waiting for further rebuttal.

At some point, the back-and-forth might end. No further posts are received; the most recent is “the last word.” The clock, however, continues to run. After all, something may change in the future, affecting the controversy.

To illustrate, think of someone who published a theory that something heavier than air could fly many years ago. A naysayer(s) would post the challenged theory and rebuttal. The clock starts—the heavier-than-air proponent(s) answer with additional information. This dialogue goes on until exhausted. In this case, the naysay(s) probably have “the last word.” The clock continues to run. Sometime in the future, someone will post a news story about the Wright Brothers Kittyhawk flight.

Now, we have a new “last word.” Sometimes, a controversy needs new information, because settled science rarely occurs.

Imagine how this system might’ve changed the debate between Biden and Trump. When Hunter Biden’s laptop became known, fifty-one former intelligence professionals labeled it as “Russian Disinformation.” The New York Post had compelling information that it was indeed Hunter’s. Tony Bobulinski, who verified emails on the laptop, backed up its assertion.

Because the intelligent people’s assertion and the challengers’ weren’t in one place, the moderator allowed Biden to get away with a whopper. His claim of Russian disinformation stood and maybe changed the election.

 If the Challenge Website had existed, the 51 intelligence people’s inability to provide supporting information would’ve left the Post’s and Bobulinki’s rebuttals as the last word. Either Trump or the moderator could’ve shot Biden’s falsehood down. As it was, Biden’s untruth probably affected the presidential election outcome.

With so many scholarly found wanting and Journals suspect, confrontation on the Challenge Website may be the only way for the public to get close to the truth. Supposed news organizations like NBC have too often become propagandists rather than practicing journalists seeking facts. 

In a rapidly changing world, we need a central unfiltered place to sort out our controversies in every area. My next step is contacting Kevin O’Leary to see if Shark Tank wants to finance the “Challenge Website.”