Unfortunately we do not have a solution for countering this kind of a 'denial of service' attack on information consumption.
It is trivial to concoct believable lies as compared to the effort needed to debunk them in a way that is effective at social scale.
Perhaps the only weapon is to teach how to think for oneself. Who is going to invest in that in a scale necessary? Those who have the resources to do that do not have sufficient motivation. Often the motivation to do the opposite is stronger.
> Perhaps the only weapon is to teach how to think for oneself. Who is going to invest in that in a scale necessary?
_Most_ developed countries do invest in the education and teaching of critical thinking. It's not even that expensive.
In most countries, if a political party prefers an uneducated voter base, they don't win elections. Or if they do, there are enough working checks and balances (and parties in the opposition) to prevent serious harm.
> we do not have a solution for countering this kind of a 'denial of service' attack
Umm, wouldn't a simple solution be going back to linear news feed that only includes updates from people you follow rather than the algorithm deciding what content to push to you?
Indeed. And with AI and video generation, it's now (or within months) literally undetectable. The closer we get to US midterms, the more we'll see how bad it really can get this time around.
And the US elections in 2028? I can barely imagine.
And the massive problem is, most people I talk to still think what they see on youtube is real. But of course, people thought the TV show Survivor was real, too. It's not a new phenomenon.
But it is at crazy levels. I like your 'denial of service' designation, because even knowing the problem, maybe you can't find real info still.
Yes and no I think. If you analyse it, the censors will work to actually block channels where the truth can be shared. What's left over time is only the government sanctioned media, which over time becomes more and more corrupt with disinformation. So I think I agree with your second sentence but not your first, in that if we didn't pretend to fight disinformation, I think we wouldn't have so much of it.
Unfortunately we do not have a solution for countering this kind of a 'denial of service' attack on information consumption.
It is trivial to concoct believable lies as compared to the effort needed to debunk them in a way that is effective at social scale.
Perhaps the only weapon is to teach how to think for oneself. Who is going to invest in that in a scale necessary? Those who have the resources to do that do not have sufficient motivation. Often the motivation to do the opposite is stronger.
> Perhaps the only weapon is to teach how to think for oneself. Who is going to invest in that in a scale necessary?
_Most_ developed countries do invest in the education and teaching of critical thinking. It's not even that expensive.
In most countries, if a political party prefers an uneducated voter base, they don't win elections. Or if they do, there are enough working checks and balances (and parties in the opposition) to prevent serious harm.
> we do not have a solution for countering this kind of a 'denial of service' attack
Umm, wouldn't a simple solution be going back to linear news feed that only includes updates from people you follow rather than the algorithm deciding what content to push to you?
We have the solution.
Indeed. And with AI and video generation, it's now (or within months) literally undetectable. The closer we get to US midterms, the more we'll see how bad it really can get this time around.
And the US elections in 2028? I can barely imagine.
And the massive problem is, most people I talk to still think what they see on youtube is real. But of course, people thought the TV show Survivor was real, too. It's not a new phenomenon.
But it is at crazy levels. I like your 'denial of service' designation, because even knowing the problem, maybe you can't find real info still.
While true, i don’t see how you can have one without the other.
“Fighting disinformation” is the banner under which free flow is necessarily interrupted.
Yes and no I think. If you analyse it, the censors will work to actually block channels where the truth can be shared. What's left over time is only the government sanctioned media, which over time becomes more and more corrupt with disinformation. So I think I agree with your second sentence but not your first, in that if we didn't pretend to fight disinformation, I think we wouldn't have so much of it.