4 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoIf 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 agoSo 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.