I think the test here could/should be of visible and definite authorship. A NYT article, with a byline, shared removes the onus from the disseminator. If the article is wrong, the liability goes back to the original author. A share with unknown provenance puts the responsibility on the person sharing. Libel stops with the sharer in this case!
This may have a chilling effect on communication wherein sharing is more akin to bringing up a thing you want to talk about rather than making a definitive statement. A big problem is that a baseless lawsuit can still cost the user tens of thousands of dollars.
Also if the purpose is to reduce the amount of blatant lies and misinformation I don't know that it would be very helpful as it seems like most of it actually has a byline just not one that any reasonable person would trust.
Forcing users to check for a byline and nothing else to avoid accidentally opting in to financial destruction wouldn't help much. Your idea needs expanding.
> I think the test here could/should be of visible and definite authorship
I see an additional test for the sharer as to whether they had reasonable expectation of knowing the information they were sharing was false and misleading.
Sharing from “Totally True News” (where sensational articles have no author and no source are quoted); that “you as a public figure are drinking the blood of babies.”
Comes to mind as probably valid ground to seek redress for defamation.
What if totally true news has a listed author even if he is a lunatic and lists sources even if they are awful. We ought to teach kids in school how to identify this but if we define in law which are good sources or which can get you sued into poverty we are in putting into effect a prior restraint on speech.
