> This feels like thinly veiled advocacy for censorship and breaking the internet. Marcus is arguing that the internet will be broken unless something is done.

> This feels like thinly veiled advocacy for censorship and breaking the internet. Marcus is arguing that the internet will be broken unless something is done. I think he is overreacting but he would argue there’s no going back from here. > The misinformation problem is not currently constrained by lack of supply, so doubling or 10x'ing or 1000x'ing the amount of misinformation that can be produced doesn't seem significantly concerning to me. Slightly flawed logic imo. A difference in quantity can definitely produce a qualitative shift in the internet. The best analogy I can think of is in surveillance. The Soviet Union had a huge surveillance network. Something like 2-3% of the population was employed to spy on the citizenry. That’s extremely expensive, which limits the amount of info you can reliably have. But what if you could cheaply surveil almost everyone? That’s the situation only made possible with modern technology. It’s not that surveillance didn’t exist before, but it was very expensive, which was self-limiting. Only the most suspect individuals could be surveilled.