This is why I disagree with the free speech absolutist crowd.
A lot of "speech" online isn't real humans voicing their opinions and having civilized discourse.
It's nation states and moneyed interests weaponizing our naïveté, using what are meant to be public squares as means of disseminating propaganda and dividing our societies.
People arguing for unrestricted free speech online are either complicit (e.g. Musk) or naive and being taken advantage of.
ngl, i think the fact that this is even possible and can get people is really dope.
I wish there were public studies like, 'We ran an experiment where young, attractive women wearing Polish clothing caused people who would naturally express these ideologies to stop scrolling more often than young, attractive women not wearing Polish clothing, for x demographic"
If you can have a nom de plume to speak truth to power, why can't one have a visage de plume as well?
I want future generations to have the power of anonymity, that some use that anonmyity for something I disagree with is precisely why I think it might be worth preserving.
Someone (Russia) is working HARD to spread anti-EU propaganda in Poland. It's a barrage of GenAI, bots, trolls, and what not.
At least to me, living in Europe, the writing on the wall is that anonymous social media - or more likely internet as a whole - is going to end over here.
I figure this is why some platforms, like X, are trying so hard to leverage their political power. They know that some verification / KYC measures are coming, and that they'll get fined or blocked if they can't follow those regulations.
I wish governments would treat things like this as equivalent to fraud.
It might not be taking people's money, but it's taking away access to truth through automated deception, which might even be worse.
Back when it took a madman to pollute discourse the public square, maybe you could have called it their right free speech, but this is not that. This is just computer assisted fraud, and exactly the kind of thing that computer hacking laws should be for.
Lots of people are calling this fraud, but I don't see it. Philosophically I don't agree. Propaganda? Sure, but no one is being defrauded. The person being served this content is on TikTok scrolling for exactly trash like this. If they weren't then it would be a simple block / don't recommend content like this.
"Gee whiz, I never thought about it that way before now, but that 15 second clip of an AI-generated woman regurgitating platitudes really changed my mind. It was so profound that I sat in stupor and thought to myself, 'Who is this woman?' I clicked on her profile and saw that her name is Anna. Thanks, Anna."
This all goes away with education. Anna doesn't harass you, you must look for Anna.
13 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 36.4 ms ] threadA lot of "speech" online isn't real humans voicing their opinions and having civilized discourse.
It's nation states and moneyed interests weaponizing our naïveté, using what are meant to be public squares as means of disseminating propaganda and dividing our societies.
People arguing for unrestricted free speech online are either complicit (e.g. Musk) or naive and being taken advantage of.
I wish there were public studies like, 'We ran an experiment where young, attractive women wearing Polish clothing caused people who would naturally express these ideologies to stop scrolling more often than young, attractive women not wearing Polish clothing, for x demographic"
I want future generations to have the power of anonymity, that some use that anonmyity for something I disagree with is precisely why I think it might be worth preserving.
At least to me, living in Europe, the writing on the wall is that anonymous social media - or more likely internet as a whole - is going to end over here.
I figure this is why some platforms, like X, are trying so hard to leverage their political power. They know that some verification / KYC measures are coming, and that they'll get fined or blocked if they can't follow those regulations.
It might not be taking people's money, but it's taking away access to truth through automated deception, which might even be worse.
Back when it took a madman to pollute discourse the public square, maybe you could have called it their right free speech, but this is not that. This is just computer assisted fraud, and exactly the kind of thing that computer hacking laws should be for.
"Gee whiz, I never thought about it that way before now, but that 15 second clip of an AI-generated woman regurgitating platitudes really changed my mind. It was so profound that I sat in stupor and thought to myself, 'Who is this woman?' I clicked on her profile and saw that her name is Anna. Thanks, Anna."
This all goes away with education. Anna doesn't harass you, you must look for Anna.
Why is everybody suggesting only expensive solutions ?
And, if we educate people, who will vote for us ? After all, we use the same methods. /s
See, that's what happens when people are educated. /s