Really nice insight:
> So the point I'd make with this is that information itself is something that should be free. Because it shapes views. Where things get dodgy is in 'inorganic' organizing and promotion.
It is this that I would like journalists and even states to protect the people against. Not censor but a nice little banner like Youtube and Twitter saying this media comes from <something> and is part of a campaign. In that banner then publish the analysis and criteria used.
Youtube does it for in-video advertising so the logic exists even in the commercial space. I find it plausible it would be valuable in the virtual agora.
The US employs the largest psyop operations investment in the world, why would you trust the government to manage info authenticity and integrity for the public?
I can see the allure of a parental figure where the state makes sure its citizens are protected from bad stuff but I think you’ve got it backwards, it’s the state itself which is not only bad but has all the power and leverage for that badness to materialize itself. Unfortunately it’s not so simple when you want to give all the power to a group to wield over you, you’ll find they’re more interested in that power than protecting you with it even if they’re peformative about it
It is this that I would like journalists and even states to protect the people against. Not censor but a nice little banner like Youtube and Twitter saying this media comes from <something> and is part of a campaign. In that banner then publish the analysis and criteria used.
Youtube does it for in-video advertising so the logic exists even in the commercial space. I find it plausible it would be valuable in the virtual agora.