> in some situations it’s better to have a human that put a blue-checkmark that can fail 1/10 than having 5/10 fake accounts Speaking strictly from a utilitari

> in some situations it’s better to have a human that put a blue-checkmark that can fail 1/10 than having 5/10 fake accounts Speaking strictly from a utilitarian perspective, I'm not so sure if a handful of blue checkmarks getting it wrong some small percentage of the time (and I'd argue that it's not quite that small) is less bad for the world than lots of random people getting it very wrong a far greater percentage of the time. The reason for that is power and influence, a journalist has a lot of it and a random person has close to none. A random Joe Schmoe who invents some conspiracy theory about the Amish's secret moon lasers controlling global weather patterns after an evening with Quaaludes and Tequila does not have any influence. But a bad journalist can panic the world into accepting bad ideas that are actually taken seriously. To me, the correct approach for finding as close to accurate information as possible is to not put professional journalists or anybody on a pedestal and distrust all information until proven and verified from multiple competing sources.