17 ms·
Generative AI could make search harder to trust
- infoseek12 3y agoLeaving aside the article to discuss the source for a moment. When did Wired become so antitech? There are good critical viewpoints but most of the articles they are putting out at this point read like bitter diatribes. Which is a shame because they used to be an excellent publication.
- cr__ 3y agoPeople are generally more cognizant of the harms caused by the tech industry than they were even a few years ago.
- thejazzman 3y agoThis. The academic internet of the 90s is so far gone and while we're seeing a lot of magic lately, it's magic available to literally everybody for any and every purpose. We're rapidly seeing how boring and disappointing that is :(
- LikelyABurner 3y agoYou can find a plethora of critical viewpoints on Hacker News and the various blogs it links to which are well cognizant of the dangers of the tech industry. The problem isn’t that Wired is critical, it’s that they’ve gone weirdly reactionary and their writing has gone so mass market dumbed down that Some Random Guy’s Blog is likely to have a better written and researched viewpoint.
- lazide 3y agoThey probably laid off almost everyone but some burnt out interns.
- robinsonb5 3y agoPlot twist: maybe the article was written by ChatGPT!
- lazide 3y agoBetter than 50/50 odds I’m guessing
- illwrks 3y agoPutting journalists out of work I guess?
- phil917 3y agoI saw a comment describing this increasing luddite response to new tech developments and it resonated with me. Essentially, the comment made the point that tech is advancing so fast these days that most people are unable to keep up with the pace of these radical changes. And the natural reaction to that for many is to reject these "advancements" or at least look upon them with cynicism and skepticism.
- 15457345234 3y agoI don't think it's anything to do with the pace of advancement, it's more that many many of these 'advancements' look very obviously harmful, not 'potentially' harmful but actively and immediately harmful in the manner of a car with brakes that only work 90% of the time.
- CatWChainsaw 3y agoYou don't think it has anything to do with the fact that 'advancements' these days come with mandatory accounts/subscriptions, egregious data harvesting, and user-hostility to keep people in line with what companies want rather than what people want?
- Planktonne 3y agoBeing antitech is a valid stance.
- salynchnew 3y agoRecently an article came out where someone said that the company I work for is a big user of WebAssembly, but the reality is that we don't use it. After finding the contributed article (on a well-known news site, not Wired though), it looks like a tech founder might've been using ChatGPT to write an article about the uses for WASM. The arguments were generally sound, but I don't think that anyone did the work to manually check any of the facts they presented in it.
- notabee 3y agoThis is kind of like the advent of spellcheck, where a whole class of errors started to appear regularly in almost every article because publishers stopped paying for the human labor to manually review for things like homonym or word ordering errors. Except much worse, because it could allow spurious or even harmful facts to accrue and spread instead of just grammatical mistakes.
- visarga 3y ago> Except much worse, because it could allow spurious or even harmful facts to accrue It already did, even in the "purely human" era. I think LLM text will gradually become more trustworthy than a random website by consistency filtering the training set.
- kumarvvr 3y agoUnfortunately, it is more than likely that the training inputs to upcoming LLMs will be partly from older LLM outputs.
- jowea 3y agoAI powered citogenesis! I'm starting to wish articles had inline citations as a standard.
- dredmorbius 3y agoInline as opposed to hyperlinks? Or would footnotes / sidenotes be acceptable?
- LetsGetTechnicl 3y agoJust another reason that I consider generative AI to be a lot like crypto. A lot of talk about it being the future but really only turns out to be dangerous or useless. I find it incredibly irresponsible that companies are shoving their latest AI tech into all their products when it's still unproven.
- pseudosavant 3y agoExcept, unlike crypto, ChatGPT helps me with real day things that I easily find at least $20/month of value from.
- LetsGetTechnicl 3y agoI don't necessarily see a problem with it for personal use by a tech-savvy person who is aware of its problems and limitations. Releasing it upon the general public where mis/disinformation is already widespread on the internet is a terrible, terrible idea.
- pseudosavant 3y agoYes. Only the enlightened like me should get it…smh.
- LetsGetTechnicl 3y agoWe don't hand dangerous tools to people without proper training. I don't see why this would be any different.
- pseudosavant 3y agoReally? Anyone can go into a Home Depot and get many dangerous tools with no training.
- happytiger 3y agoAI has so completely disrupting Search that it’s destroyed leading platforms effectiveness in a matter of months. But because of its current lack of optimization for accuracy, we shouldn’t consider it disruptive because it’s not yet proven technology? You can call it dangerous but you can’t call it useless. It’s also only going towards improvement from here, including drastic reductions in hallucinations. You have to remember too that AI models are generally attempting to interpret the intent behind the prompt, so many of these crazy articles are happening because people aren’t yet good at writing clear instructions for AI and AI isn’t yet mature enough to disambiguate poor instructions in its output and is trying to deliver on unclear instructional intents.
- tivert 3y agoWe did it guys! We're definitely heading into a new era, one perfected by software engineers. I can't wait!
- Kon-Peki 3y agoTHERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
- nonrandomstring 3y agoMore amusing and frightening is when people search about themselves and turn up AI generated crap. Googling yourself was always a lucky grab bag, with the possibility of long-forgotten embarrassments being dragged up. But at least you'd have to face facts. Now I hear of people discovering they're in prison, married to random people they've never met, or are actually already dead. What is this going to do to recon on individuals (for example by employers, border agents or potential romantic partners) when there's a good chance the reputation raffle will report you as a serial rapist, kiddy-fiddler or Tory politician?
- vorpalhex 3y agoThis is a new way to be anonymous too. Someone post something true but nasty about you? Have LLMs cook up dozens of preposterous stories - you're secretly a rodeo clown, you write childrens books, you built a castle in Rome, you once drank a goldfish, etc. Increase noise to drown signal.
- kr0bat 3y agoThis is essentially the service Reuptation.com claims to provide. Jon Ronson's "So You've Been Publicly Shamed" describes the site games SEO to flood the search results of controversial figures with banal nothing posts[1]. The difference being that actual humans had to create that content. In the near future, the web could become opaque with LLM schlock, but at least it may grant people a right to be forgotten. [1]https://www.businessinsider.com/lindsey-stone--so-youve-been-publicly-shamed https://www.businessinsider.com/lindsey-stone--so-youve-been...
- acomjean 3y agoI think Boris Johnson tried that by saying out of the blue: he makes model busses. There was some thinking at the time that he didn't want the brexit bus to show up in searches and was trying to game search results.. I don't think it worked.
- JohnFen 3y ago> Now I hear of people discovering they're in prison, married to random people they've never met, or are actually already dead. My real name is very, very common -- so this has been my reality for my entire life. These days, I have grown to appreciate it. It's like an invisibility superpower.
- pseudosavant 3y agoI wonder if there will be a human information/knowledge equivalent of low-background steel (pre-WWII/nukes). Data from before a certain point won't be 'contaminated' with LLM stuff, but it'll be everywhere after that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel
- DayDollar 3y agoThere will be a web of trust, with a valuation of nodes by trustworthyness. And people will get only one id for this. Ones name is ones value and a reputation will be a hard earned thing again.
- ratg13 3y agoThis was how the "internet" functions in the book "Ender's Game". There is a small sub-plot about how he had to give a fake persona credibility on the untrusted network in order to be able to leverage a creating a fake account on the trusted network.
- dredmorbius 3y agoI find the xkcd interpretation more realistic: <https://xkcd.com/635/ https://xkcd.com/635/> Explained: <https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/635:_Locke_and_Demosthenes https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/635:_Locke_and_De...>
- notahacker 3y agoI love that interpretation, but in today's retweet driven world of politically commentary, I actually find it quite plausible that pseudonymous kids with no grasp of the real world who think rational political debate is the nonsensical slogans they're spouting on the internet become major Twitter influencers that actual politicians want to court for their "authenticity" and "willingness to say the unsayable", and maybe their dank memes.
- anjel 3y agoMore than Pinterest?
- IronWolve 3y agoit's almost like AI just repeats data its fed on, even incorrect data, without any real intelligence to determine if the data is correct.... /s Its not simply garbage in garbage out. There is no logic to verify and analyze the data. You are simply told what is popular in the data.
- lazide 3y agoUnfortunately, that is also a sizable portion of the human population. AI definitely does it cheaper and at larger scale though!
- yetanotherloser 3y agoI've definitely met a lot of people who fail the GPT test.
- smt88 3y agoAI doesn't "just" repeat data. You can feed a LLM 100% fact-checked data and it'll still hallucinate. It's a core problem with generative AI and it can't be solved with better data.
- aconsult1 3y agoAll of a sudden the saying "eat your own dog food" takes a twist and is no longer fun.
- p0w3n3d 3y agoAnd entropy rises... people thought AI will kill us with machine guns. AI will kill us by making us super stupid...
- euroderf 3y agoI have already externalized my to-do lists and other reminder lists to teh interwebz. I can't wait to outsource my faculties for reasoning too.
- ChatGTP 3y agoAnd it’s only $20 a month and it’s useful !! I’m using it eVerYdAy to save hOuRS!!!
- p0w3n3d 3y agoTo be honest I really am scared how quickly my mind removes some ability once it gets automated. I already almost stopped looking into mirror while rear parking because one of my cars has rear parking sensors. I'm scared of driving a car with front parking sensors...
- abruzzi 3y agoI have to say--the opening paragraph doesn't describe a reality I'm familiar with: >Web search is such a routine part of daily life that it’s easy to forget how marvelous it is. Type into a little text box and a complex array of technologies—vast data centers, ravenous web crawlers, and stacks of algorithms that poke and parse a query—spring into action to serve you a simple set of relevant results. Web search has, for me, become a nasty twisted hall of mirrors well before generative AI. I almose never get fed relevant results, I alsmost always have to go back and quote all my search terms because the search engine decided it didn't really need to use all of them (usually just one.) The only difference is the poison was human generated. generative AI will simply erase the 5% of results that might give me an answer quickly.
- jfengel 3y agoI experience that when I try to google for technical problems I'm having at work, but otherwise searches still go pretty well for me. I just had to google a bunch of races that I wanted to run. The top result was always the event's own web site. When I google some news, relevant news articles always come up. The last search I did was for how to display a ket vector in LaTeX. The top result was the StackExchange article with the right answer. From what I see, certain domains seem to be targeted for exploitation. Programming questions seem to be high up on the list. I wonder if that skews HN readers' perceptions.
- JSavageOne 3y agoGoogle search to retrieve specific factual information is pretty good. Google search to retrieve anything opinion related has been horrible and infested with blogspam for years (hence people searching Reddit to get that kind of info).
- fnordpiglet 3y agoGoogle search to retrieve product marketing pages is pretty good. Specific factual information searches lead to product marketing pages. Opinion searches lead to product marketing pages. Google is a giant adware tool that’s been taken over by adware SEO sites. The example given - find the product marketing pages for some races - falls directly in its sweet spot. If you venture outside it’ll do its best to get you back into the product marketing sweet spot, and the SEO companies of the world take care of the rest. Search is a lost cause.
- faizshah 3y agoI started to go down a line of thinking where I think we might see a return to books in the next 3-5 years. The reason is that with a book it’s a big collection of knowledge and people can post reviews about the quality of the book whereas on the web you have no way of knowing what quality of an article will be anymore.
- notamy 3y agohttps://archive.ph/2023.10.05-165142/https://www.wired.com/story/fast-forward-chatbot-hallucinations-are-poisoning-web-search/ https://archive.ph/2023.10.05-165142/https://www.wired.com/s...
- kiernanmcgowan 3y agoWithout naming the company, I have seen specific examples of blog posts being written by AI, hallucinating a "fact", and then that "fact" re-surfacing inside of Bard. Its xkcd's Citogenesis automated and at internet scale https://xkcd.com/978/ https://xkcd.com/978/
- danielsgriffin 3y agoSomeone on Twitter just tried asking Bard [are you familiar with a paper called "A Short History of Searching"] and Bard responded by linking Claude Shannon to a fabrication. https://twitter.com/nunohipolito/status/1710063374145343511 https://twitter.com/nunohipolito/status/1710063374145343511
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Condition1952 3y agoPlease get your answers from Anna’s Library
- lykahb 3y agoThe SEO garbage has been poisoning the search for years. Even before the chatbots it got to the point when most top results are crap. The LLM's can surely make it much worse, though.
- hashtag-til 3y agoI think this is a given these days. LLMs likely will become the new single point of failure search. This is too much of a temptation for the SEO scum to resist.
- hnick 3y agoI was trying to do something with delegates in C# but couldn't remember what the various bits were called since it's been so long, so didn't have the magic words for Google to work. ChatGPT sorted me out with my vague question and one followup. Ultimately, I would like to see more about the other side. If generative AI can make blog spam, then I think it can recognise blog spam. How far are we from implementing a reliable filter of useless spam sites from search results? I don't expect Google has a monetary incentive for this, but maybe someone else does. But from my story above maybe "search" is a thing of the past and for functional queries, we will just talk to the gatekeeper. Reading the actual words written will only be for leisure.
- figassis 3y agoI think we all saw this coming, talked about it, articles were published even...but now its news
- throwawaaarrgh 3y agoWhy are people calling them hallucinations and not just errors, flaws or bugs? You can't hallucinate if all of your perception is one internal state. Chatbots don't dream of electric sheep.
- crispycas12 3y agoPersonally, I think confabulations would be a better term. To the best of my understanding, these AI rely on a model similar to the reconstructive theory of memory in humans. The connotation of the word confabulation indicates no maliciousness while highlighting the erroneous nature of the action.
- zpeti 3y agoHere's what people don't understand: this is mostly good for google. The worse organic results are, the more people will click on paid links. This is WHY everyone on HN is complaining about search results, because google doesn't really have an incentive to give you really good results. They only need to be good enough to keep 95% of the population still using google, but mostly expecting the good results to be ads. Google ads are the equivalent of verification on FB and X. They just call it something different. The verified, high quality results will be paid.
- TeMPOraL 3y agoHuh. How long until they simply change the label from "ad" to "verified"?
- gumballindie 3y agoThe correct term is spamming. People are using these text generators to spam everyone and everything under the sun. It will be detrimental to the internet as many people will just give on this huge pile of ... spam.
- thenickdude 3y agoLike the heat death of the universe, we'll have the spam death of the Internet.
- mattlondon 3y agoOr to use the technical term: "shat the bed". Welcome to the future.
- abujazar 3y ago«Could»? Google has already been doing this for quite some time, at least in my region (Norway), and I’d say more than half of the suggestions Google provides as top results are false.
- 23B1 3y agoThat really sucks for all the people whose job it is to make search impossible to trust already /s
- jeffreyw128 3y agoIt’s especially terrifying that misinformation compounds multiplicatively with AI because it happens in 2 layers - once at the retrieval layer (where AI-generated content is worsening the problem of bad SEO content) and again at the retrieval augmented generation (RAG) LLM layer. (shameless plug) At Metaphor (https://platform.metaphor.systems/ https://platform.metaphor.systems/), we’re building a search engine that avoids SEO content by relying on human curation + neural embeddings for our index + retrieval algorithm. Our mission is to ensure that the information we receive is as high quality and truthful as possible as AI adoption marches onwards. You (or your LLM) can feel free to give it a try :)
- sarahchieng 3y ago+1. Increasing training data quality should also hopefully help with hallucination. But becomes increasingly hard in a world where more and more online content is crap.
- lucian123 3y agoI'm not an expert in training LLMs, but I've heard that some people use reinforcement algorithms to train and align LLM behaviors with human preferences. When it comes to designing a loss function for training, I wonder if it's possible to assign an extremely high loss value to hallucinated content during training. This approach might encourage the model to refrain from generating inaccurate content.
- StableAlkyne 3y agoI actually experienced this the other day. Bought the new Baldur's Gate and was wondering what items to keep or sell (don't judge me, I'm a pack rat in games!) I had found some silver ingots. The top search result for "bg3 silver ingot" is a content farm article that very confidently claims you can use them at a workbench in Act 3 to upgrade your weapons. Except this is a complete fabrication: silver ingots exist only to sell, and there is no workbench. There is no mechanic (short of mods) that allows you to change a weapon's stats. I'm pretty sure an LLM "helped" write the article because it's a lot of trouble to go through just to be straight up wrong - if you're a low effort content farm, why in the world would you go through the trouble if fabricating an entire game mechanic instead of taking the low effort "They exist only to be sold" road? This experience has caused me to start checking the date of search results: if it's 2022 and before, at least it's written by a human. If it's 2023 and on, I dust off my 90's "everything on the World Wide Web is wrong" glasses.
- PaulHoule 3y ago10 years ago I was a huge fan of GameFAQs, which, for any major game, had at least one and often several highly detailed documents describing a game, not just a walkthrough but a set of tables where you would find items. Back then I was playing Hyperdimension Neptunia and almost tried “applying AI” in the old sense to the problem of “What do I have to do to craft item X?”. Those games all had good FAQs and extracting a knowledge graph and feeding it into some engine that could resolve dependencies wouldn’t have been too hard. Today I am playing Atelier Sophie which has the same mechanic but is very cozy and doesn’t pose complex dependency problems and the FAQs for this game are atrocious, consisting of a walkthrough that way too prescriptive. If you ask some question like “Where do I get a Night Crystal?” on Google this is likely to turn up a question/answer pair on a forum which isn’t quite as good as having the structured FAQ. YouTube walkthroughs really seemed to kill text walkthroughs, sometimes these are better (like when there is a jump in a dungeon that doesn’t look like you could make it but you can) but sometime they are much worse (there are 75 hour long videos in a walkthrough, you have to find that it is in video #33 and that you have to seek to 20:55.) Maybe the proliferation of trash sites will motivate the creation of high quality FAQs but you’d better believe that the creator of these FAQs will be horribly afraid of being ripped off.
- serf 3y agoI think it'd be kind of neat in a backward way if we went back to the 'specialized encyclopedia' days of the 90s. Web directories , 'Who's Who in Engineering' type lists, etc. It's a step back from universal search engines being able to find stuff, but it's a step forward with regards to curation and quality of results; so i'm not sure if it's entirely a downgrade. The early 90s 'website phonebook' type encyclopedias were interesting[0], but I always had to remind my mom "No, this isn't the entire internet, it's just a bunch of places that people like; the secret ones are 'unlisted'." Note: I never say this is better than a search engine, it's just an interesting end-result after search engines got polluted and modified til the point of uselessness that we're at now with Google. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/Internet-Directory-Guide-Usenet-Bitnet/dp/0449908984 https://www.amazon.com/Internet-Directory-Guide-Usenet-Bitne...
- armchairhacker 3y agoIt's already kind of like that for me, in that almost all of my searches fall into these categories: - Wikipedia - Online documentation for whatever language/framework/tool I'm using - Stack Overflow / Stack Exchange for most technical questions - Reddit if SO/SE doesn't work, and for opinionated questions (e.g. r/BuyItForLife) - Hacker news for software recommendations and technical opinionated questions - Arxiv or the ACM library if it's a research paper (99% of the time, whenever I google something niche the only relevant results are papers) - Other sites like caniuse.com, university sites for health and nutritional info, old-style forums for specific software For these searches I'm just using Google to bring me to the specific site I want, because it's faster than using the site's own search functionality. Then there are the times I literally just type in the website instead of the URL bar (e.g. "instacart"), or when I use Google maps, images, or reviews. I'm always wary when Google returns an unfamiliar site because I'm skeptical of the results. ~70% of the time it's some blogspam which is at best accurate but overly wordy, and at worst inaccurate; sometimes it's a blog from some random individual who for whatever reason went into a deep dive trying to understand what I'm searching for, that actually turns out to be useful; the rest, idk.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 3y ago
- whb101 3y agoThis is a pretty intractable problem and my app is in the alpha-est of stages, but I built something for this purpose. It maps creators on a 2D grid (using React-flow) based on subject and lets users vote on their trustworthiness. https://www.graphting.org https://www.graphting.org
- anigbrowl 3y agoSurely, just as content farms have gradually trashed the quality of search results on major platforms. There's also an over-reliance on raw quantities; I often get irrelevant and unwanted news articles from India simply because the huge population of that country coupled with widespread use of English outweighs US content on the social graph.
- kidsil 3y agoAs opposed to today where half my search results are the result of who has the larger SEO budget?
- kordlessagain 3y agoIt'll make it easier to trust if you have your own index of documents. That's why I built this: https://mitta.us/ https://mitta.us/ There still exists a problem that users need to run and manage their own indexes, at times.
- michaelteter 3y agoThe signal to noise ratio of web search results has been trending toward utter uselessness for years; so while AI content will make it worse, it won't make it dramatically worse. We'll just advance toward useless at a higher rate.
- loveparade 3y agoTo me, "advance towards useless at a (possibly exponentially) higher rate" means that it makes it dramatically worse. Also, the convergence point is difference. At some point human-generated spam content is no longer worth it because the costs exceed the profits. With AI making the process cheaper, you get to a much higher ratio of spam.
- qwerty456127 3y agoYou should never have had been trusting what you find on the web, let alone other media. I hope widespread usage of generative AIs including deepfakes will finally force the masses to start thinking more critically.
- p_j_w 3y agoThis is an absurd proposition. How is one supposed to think critically when there's nowhere to go for reliable information? We'll be left just taking shots in the dark, what little amount of informed reasoning we had before will be replaced by pure conjecture. There won't be any increase in critical thinking.
- qwerty456127 3y agoIt has always been this way, we just didnt know. Now we can be sure. However, there always is a sufficiently reliable/checkable fact: "a specific media wrote...". Whatever they actually wrote is not a fact but they wrote it - this is. This said you can then ask youself why they most likely did, keeping in mind other observations of yours.
- shinycode 3y agoAlso it might reinforce cognitive biais as pure truths to a lot of people who rely only on themselves if no other information is reliable
- dishsoap 3y agoThis article's bout a year late, it has already happened.
- daniel_iversen 3y agoAt first I thought the article was going to be about human-led misinformation but I wonder whether with both hallucinations and human-fed misinformation (AI-helped or not!) whether we can use AI to fact/self check results (both AI generated and human ones) and prompt us about potential misinformation and link to relevant sources? That way AI could actually help solve the trust issue.
- kakaz 3y agoWell, did you have to use Microsoft documentation ? Imagine whole Internet presenting that content, with random flashes of animations and html5 whistles
- hypnoosi 3y agoIt's great to hear that someone finds Replit's AI capabilities useful for accelerating their learning... However, I must point out that the post sounds like an advertisement for an overpriced product. Not poking the AI assistance in coding, it definitely can be valuable, but the effectiveness vs. cost-efficiency varies. 20 dollars per month for coding a chatbot, not worth it for me...
- Havoc 3y agoYep. Same with code too. Confidently generates code using endpoints that don’t exist
- SubiculumCode 3y agoI thought we were already there, just by paid foreign labor spammin every public discussion board.
- liampulles 3y agoI think the insufficient accuracy in the output of LLMs is going to lead them to be a lot more niche then the current hype is hoping for. I think most people care that someone is taking accountability for what they are reading - not that it is necessarily correct but at least that someone thinks it is correct (and that someone can be taken to task if it is inaccurate). If LLM usage in media becomes widespread, I'd pay for a service that identifies and hides the LLM shit for me.
- ironborn123 3y agoWasnt there a paper a few months back, Textbooks are all you need. yes found it https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.11644 https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.11644 So search engines in their traditional sense will be obsolete anyway. 1) GPT-4 and other such LLMs will generate textbooks and manuals for every conceivable topic. 2) These textbooks will be 'dehallucinated' and curated by known experts on particular topics, who have reputations to maintain. The experts' names will be advertised by the LLM provider. 3) People will search for stuff by chatting with the LLMs, which will in turn provide citations for the chat output from the curated textbooks.
- amelius 3y agoWe need more research into content moderation.
- smeagull 3y agoLies, misinformation and blogspam has always existed. The problem hasn't changed at all.