I’m OK with this risk. The incredible rise of stupid arguments that we attempt to treat as equal for consideration is unreasonable. If we want to continue having meaningful discourse, we have to remove disinformation.
Yeah, but the question was; who decides what is disinformation? If it was some truly competent and unbiased AI system then I perhaps wouldn’t be as concerned about it, though I can see issues with that too, but humans are flawed and I see this as a potenttial slippery slope towards tyranny and censorship.
Imperfect need not be the enemy of good. Failure to combat disinformation is absolutely a path to tyranny, and a lie going halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on is effectively censorship if the truth comes out only by the time the public has lost interest.
Yes, there are problems combating it, but we have to show up to the fight somehow. I’ll take a fallible fact checking system over none at all, because the court of public opinion makes a poor fact checker.
I’m OK with this risk. The incredible rise of stupid arguments that we attempt to treat as equal for consideration is unreasonable. If we want to continue having meaningful discourse, we have to remove disinformation.
Yeah, but the question was; who decides what is disinformation? If it was some truly competent and unbiased AI system then I perhaps wouldn’t be as concerned about it, though I can see issues with that too, but humans are flawed and I see this as a potenttial slippery slope towards tyranny and censorship.
Imperfect need not be the enemy of good. Failure to combat disinformation is absolutely a path to tyranny, and a lie going halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on is effectively censorship if the truth comes out only by the time the public has lost interest.
Yes, there are problems combating it, but we have to show up to the fight somehow. I’ll take a fallible fact checking system over none at all, because the court of public opinion makes a poor fact checker.