3 ms·

So now it's the elderly. I've seen them fall for phone scams much more commonly, they usually don't have the technical ability to use the internet. You're defl

So now it's the elderly. I've seen them fall for phone scams much more commonly, they usually don't have the technical ability to use the internet. You're deflecting from the disinformation narrative into elderly scam. Which I agree is a problem, just a completely different one than the disinformation narrative presents.

bcrl 3y ago
It's still disinformation. It doesn't matter what segment of the population falls for it. It's not a real video of Elon Musk, and the get rich quick claims are as fake as always. Showing these ads is still immoral and unethical promotion of disinformation for profit.
- listenallyall 3y ago
  You are conflating an advertisement -- a separate category, which normal people and regulators recognize as often being deceptive and manipulative -- with "news," including statements from current and formal government officials, and even testimony in courts and congressional hearings. Advertisements are often total bullshit (and I would likely consider anything created by AI to almost certainly be), but that is an entirely different phenomenon than today's concept of "disinformation."
  - bcrl 3y ago
    Until recently, it was costly to fake a video of someone talking. Recent advances in generative AI have changed that. One definition for disinformation is "deliberately misleading or biased information; manipulated narrative or facts; propaganda". The ad I viewed meets that qualification. This was not your typical advertisement trying to persuade the viewer that their product is better than others. It used a generated video of Elon Musk saying things that he did not say, endorsing a product he did not endorse in an attempt to appear legitimate. This is very different from traditional advertising. The AI shitpocalypse is here. We get to watch it play out in real time over the coming decade.
    - GoblinSlayer 3y ago
      >Until recently, it was costly to fake a video of someone talking. Due to which Tom Cruise talking in an ad had bigger impact.
    - listenallyall 3y ago
      I agree that the AI generated stuff is fucked up. What I'm pointing out is that an advertisement is expected to be biased and not necessarily tethered to "facts." It's why magazines and social media platforms require (or are supposed to) ads and paid content to be marked as such. GM doesn't claim that Ford is spreading "disinformation" -- but newspapers, TV stations, politicians, etc do constantly claim that people with the opposite viewpoint on a variety of topics are spreading disinformation. And now, despite the 1st Amendment, even courts are enabling censorship because the censored words are "hateful" or "disinformation" or "violence."
      - bcrl 3y ago
        The difference is that ads in magazines, newspapers and on TV are curated by humans, so that the kind of clearly illegal and unethical ads peddled by platforms never get published. Free speech comes with the obligation of responsibility. You can't go around yelling "Fire!" in a theatre because of the clearly obvious possible negative consequences of that action. Legacy mainstream media appear to understand that better than big tech platforms do. Big tech wants to profit off the illegal and unethical content without having any responsibility for doing so. This is wrong.
        GoblinSlayer 3y ago
        If curators blocked one unethical ad, it doesn't mean they block other unethical ads. Even worse, unethical ads they didn't block are assumed to be ethical. Who curates the curators?
        bcrl 3y ago
        So your argument is that making rules is hard so we shouldn't make rules? The bare minimum standard of ethical behaviour is to not do things that harm other people. The ads I am referring to meet the test of causing harm to people that act based on the content presented. Plus they violate securities laws. It's pretty cut and dry for that case.

bcrl 3y ago

It's still disinformation. It doesn't matter what segment of the population falls for it. It's not a real video of Elon Musk, and the get rich quick claims are as fake as always. Showing these ads is still immoral and unethical promotion of disinformation for profit.

listenallyall 3y ago
You are conflating an advertisement -- a separate category, which normal people and regulators recognize as often being deceptive and manipulative -- with "news," including statements from current and formal government officials, and even testimony in courts and congressional hearings. Advertisements are often total bullshit (and I would likely consider anything created by AI to almost certainly be), but that is an entirely different phenomenon than today's concept of "disinformation."
- bcrl 3y ago
  Until recently, it was costly to fake a video of someone talking. Recent advances in generative AI have changed that. One definition for disinformation is "deliberately misleading or biased information; manipulated narrative or facts; propaganda". The ad I viewed meets that qualification. This was not your typical advertisement trying to persuade the viewer that their product is better than others. It used a generated video of Elon Musk saying things that he did not say, endorsing a product he did not endorse in an attempt to appear legitimate. This is very different from traditional advertising. The AI shitpocalypse is here. We get to watch it play out in real time over the coming decade.
  - GoblinSlayer 3y ago
    >Until recently, it was costly to fake a video of someone talking. Due to which Tom Cruise talking in an ad had bigger impact.
  - listenallyall 3y ago
    I agree that the AI generated stuff is fucked up. What I'm pointing out is that an advertisement is expected to be biased and not necessarily tethered to "facts." It's why magazines and social media platforms require (or are supposed to) ads and paid content to be marked as such. GM doesn't claim that Ford is spreading "disinformation" -- but newspapers, TV stations, politicians, etc do constantly claim that people with the opposite viewpoint on a variety of topics are spreading disinformation. And now, despite the 1st Amendment, even courts are enabling censorship because the censored words are "hateful" or "disinformation" or "violence."
    - bcrl 3y ago
      The difference is that ads in magazines, newspapers and on TV are curated by humans, so that the kind of clearly illegal and unethical ads peddled by platforms never get published. Free speech comes with the obligation of responsibility. You can't go around yelling "Fire!" in a theatre because of the clearly obvious possible negative consequences of that action. Legacy mainstream media appear to understand that better than big tech platforms do. Big tech wants to profit off the illegal and unethical content without having any responsibility for doing so. This is wrong.
      - GoblinSlayer 3y ago
        If curators blocked one unethical ad, it doesn't mean they block other unethical ads. Even worse, unethical ads they didn't block are assumed to be ethical. Who curates the curators?
        bcrl 3y ago
        So your argument is that making rules is hard so we shouldn't make rules? The bare minimum standard of ethical behaviour is to not do things that harm other people. The ads I am referring to meet the test of causing harm to people that act based on the content presented. Plus they violate securities laws. It's pretty cut and dry for that case.