5 ms·

> Your suggestion won’t solve any problem and will introduce new ones, like making manipulation and censorship easier. This is absolutely untrue for manipulati

> Your suggestion won’t solve any problem and will introduce new ones, like making manipulation and censorship easier. This is absolutely untrue for manipulation. Currently, private (both American and Chinese) social media platforms have become mouthpieces of authoritarian propaganda and misinformation. Russian bot farms cooperate with American billionaires to push destabilizing extremist propaganda and suppress moderate voices. And I agree that outlawing all non-ID media would open the floodgates for government censorship. But that is not the proposal here: the proposal is to provide an alternative, which guarantees that the opinion you read is, in fact, the opinion of a real (European) person, not the output of an LLM trained on the hateful ramblings of the Yarvins and Dugins of this world. If that's not what you want, you're free to go back to TikTok, X or Facebook. We are in agreement on "chat control" and similar anti-encryption political schemes, but the social media question pertains to public, not private, communications. Signed, Colin Emonds (of Cologne, Germany) A European

aleph_minus_one 2y ago
> And I agree that outlawing all non-ID media would open the floodgates for government censorship. It wouldn't only update the floodgates, it's rather the idea behind these proposals. :-)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
nodoll 2y ago
[flagged]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
latexr 2y ago
> Currently, private (both American and Chinese) social media platforms have become mouthpieces of authoritarian propaganda and misinformation. Which is an orthogonal issue. Private social media doing it does not mean government-owned social media wouldn’t. In fact, it is precisely because authoritarians already can see it working that they would salivate at the though. > And I agree that outlawing all non-ID media would open the floodgates for government censorship. But that is not the proposal here You’re agreeing with and rebutting things I haven’t said. I don’t think the proposal was to outlaw other forms of social media. I still think the proposal is bad on its own. > which guarantees that the opinion you read is, in fact, the opinion of a real (European) person, not the output of an LLM trained on the hateful ramblings of the Yarvins and Dugins of this world. It guarantees no such thing. There’s nothing stopping that real person from asking an LLM and posting the reply directly. That already happens today. Heck, people confidently post screenshots of LLM conversations as if they were fact even when they’re provably wrong. > If that's not what you want, you're free to go back to TikTok, X or Facebook. I personally don’t use any of those, and neither would I defend them. Again, my argument is those are already bad and OP’s proposal is just as bad and then adds worse things on top.
- indigo945 2y ago
  > It guarantees no such thing. There’s nothing stopping that real person from asking an LLM and posting the reply directly. The point is that it prevents multi-accounting and deliberate astroturfing campaigns. If people personally decide to just trust ChatGPT screenshots as gospel and assume LLM outout as their opinion, that's their own prerogative.

aleph_minus_one 2y ago

> And I agree that outlawing all non-ID media would open the floodgates for government censorship. It wouldn't only update the floodgates, it's rather the idea behind these proposals. :-)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

nodoll 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

latexr 2y ago

> Currently, private (both American and Chinese) social media platforms have become mouthpieces of authoritarian propaganda and misinformation. Which is an orthogonal issue. Private social media doing it does not mean government-owned social media wouldn’t. In fact, it is precisely because authoritarians already can see it working that they would salivate at the though. > And I agree that outlawing all non-ID media would open the floodgates for government censorship. But that is not the proposal here You’re agreeing with and rebutting things I haven’t said. I don’t think the proposal was to outlaw other forms of social media. I still think the proposal is bad on its own. > which guarantees that the opinion you read is, in fact, the opinion of a real (European) person, not the output of an LLM trained on the hateful ramblings of the Yarvins and Dugins of this world. It guarantees no such thing. There’s nothing stopping that real person from asking an LLM and posting the reply directly. That already happens today. Heck, people confidently post screenshots of LLM conversations as if they were fact even when they’re provably wrong. > If that's not what you want, you're free to go back to TikTok, X or Facebook. I personally don’t use any of those, and neither would I defend them. Again, my argument is those are already bad and OP’s proposal is just as bad and then adds worse things on top.

indigo945 2y ago
> It guarantees no such thing. There’s nothing stopping that real person from asking an LLM and posting the reply directly. The point is that it prevents multi-accounting and deliberate astroturfing campaigns. If people personally decide to just trust ChatGPT screenshots as gospel and assume LLM outout as their opinion, that's their own prerogative.