This big push for control of information flows is all disturbing, sounds very authoritarian. Plus the big question is what is real journalism or who decides ? The government? or are media companies just trying to build economic moats against new comers?
At the moment humans - as long as they spend a little time thinking and are not emotionally - are better equipped than an AI in deciding whether a story is fake or not. The fake news exploded when Facebook let go the human team and switched to an AI.
I know we all distrust hierarchy here but there is a reason the military is hierarchical: It is robust when under attack. We all recognize there is a value of defense in depth when it comes to security. Against an army of incentivize spammers likely one needs a layered defense. One that can adapt intelligently to unforeseen situations.
Likely this means human editors. To defuse their power probably a set of independent chief editors. It would not constitute a new system.
Failure to do that means the most excitable tribe (=where more clicks can be generated) will drown out the timeline digital airwaves. It certainly will not lead to a sensible dialog. Particular in places that have low voter participation that may sway elections.
Comments
This big push for control of information flows is all disturbing, sounds very authoritarian. Plus the big question is what is real journalism or who decides ? The government? or are media companies just trying to build economic moats against new comers?
At the moment humans - as long as they spend a little time thinking and are not emotionally - are better equipped than an AI in deciding whether a story is fake or not. The fake news exploded when Facebook let go the human team and switched to an AI.
I know we all distrust hierarchy here but there is a reason the military is hierarchical: It is robust when under attack. We all recognize there is a value of defense in depth when it comes to security. Against an army of incentivize spammers likely one needs a layered defense. One that can adapt intelligently to unforeseen situations.
Likely this means human editors. To defuse their power probably a set of independent chief editors. It would not constitute a new system.
Failure to do that means the most excitable tribe (=where more clicks can be generated) will drown out the timeline digital airwaves. It certainly will not lead to a sensible dialog. Particular in places that have low voter participation that may sway elections.
I agree it's concerning, but there are some articles that are blatantly 100% pure fiction, presented as fact.
Sure they definitely shouldn't be deleted, but news readers probably do want the role of 'editor' returned to filter out the most obvious noise.