Put a free desk in libraries where librarians help people check whether a piece of information is true
In short
- Libraries add specially trained librarians who help people work out how to check information.
- Anyone can ask for help for free, at the desk, by phone, or by chat.
- Librarians do not declare things true or false, but trace the source and the evidence together with the person.
- The money comes from a share of the advertising income of big internet companies.
- What people ask is not recorded, and neither the state nor political parties can interfere.
If this comes true
A high school boy checks a video forwarded by his mother, which claims a certain herb cures cancer, with a librarian at the library desk, and then explains to her that the original study was a small experiment on animals.
Perhaps
Before an election, rumors might spread that the desk is on the government's side, and the people who are truly unsure might stop coming to ask.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal sets up a "fact-check help" desk in public and school libraries, staffed full-time by librarians trained to check how reliable information is. It covers any information a user wonders about, such as online posts, videos, ads, rumors, and news articles, and it is free for everyone regardless of age or nationality. Help is offered by phone and chat as well as at the desk, and small towns are served online by librarians from a large library nearby. The librarian's job is not to rule whether something is true or false. It is to trace with the person where the information came from, what the original material or study actually says, and how it conflicts with other reliable information, and so to hand over the method of checking itself. What people ask and who they are is not recorded, and the law states that no one, including the government, political parties, and investigators, can demand that it be disclosed. The cost of placing and training librarians is covered by collecting, as a levy, a share of the advertising income of social media, search, and video streaming companies above a certain size, and distributing it to the bodies that run libraries. Neither the companies paying the levy nor the government can interfere with individual consultations or with what librarians explain. For specialized questions beyond a librarian's reach, a system connects them with partners at universities and research institutions.
BenefitsChecking becomes support anyone can lean on, not one person's skill
The strength of this proposal is that it uses human help to fill the gap between knowing how to check and actually being able to. Librarians guide people to original studies and paid materials that they could not find alone, so anyone can reach them. Adults who left school long ago, and children who have heard a doubtful story from family, learn how to check through hands-on work on one real case. Because librarians hand over the steps instead of a verdict, people who ask are less likely to feel a conclusion was forced on them, and they can explain to family and friends why they are convinced. Since wrong information travels from person to person, one person's understanding can also spread to those around them. Asking for the money from companies that earn income from attention-grabbing posts also makes sense: those who profit from the spread pay part of the cost of cleaning up afterward. The promise not to record questions lets people bring up topics that are hard to ask anyone about, such as politics, health, and sex, and carries into the internet age the trust libraries have long kept, that no one is asked what they looked up.
DrawbacksA publicly funded desk may be suspected as a "guardian of truth" and become a target of division
The heaviest cost is that a desk run on public money, however much it avoids making rulings, may be seen by people as a place that spreads the government's views. On a politically contested topic, if the materials a librarian shows seem to favor one side, the desk itself could become a target and even damage trust in libraries. When the government changes, there will also be pressure to meddle with how the levy is distributed and what librarians are trained to do. Meanwhile, while a librarian spends time on one case, false information is being shared tens of thousands of times, and the desk can never keep up with the speed of the spread. The people who actually visit may lean toward those who already want to look things up, and the desk may not reach the people most likely to believe false information. If companies add the levy on advertising income to their ad prices, small shops and users end up paying in the end, and imposing it country by country would make negotiations with the companies difficult. Keeping staff costs money every year but shows few visible results, so the program also risks being the first thing cut in every budget review.
Learn the background
In response to the spread of false information and wrong health information, many societies have answered by teaching in schools how to tell what is real, or by urging people to be careful. But even people who know how to check face real work and need tools when they actually do it: finding the original study, reading technical terms, and reaching paid articles and databases. Busy adults, older people, and people who left school long ago find it hard to do alone. Wrong information also flows to people for free, while reliable information is often behind a paywall. Companies such as social media sites earn more advertising income from eye-catching posts, so they are in a position where it is hard to move toward slowing the spread. Yet if a government creates an agency to judge what is true, that raises fears of censorship. So the responsibility for checking stays pushed onto individuals, with no public help to support them. Libraries, which have long helped people with their research, have lost librarians to budget cuts and cannot fill this role.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-23a) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes