That video is clearly disinformation / misinformation. There is zero chance that video would be played on a conventional broadcaster. Why? They have to be accountable for the content they put in front of viewers. Conventional broadcasters have to participate in advertising standards councils and answer to regulators.

On the other hand, platforms are unaccountable and unwilling to act in the public interest. Profit trumps all. The average person has no idea how to record an ad that was just shown to them by a "platform". That video that was in the corner of the webpage that turns out to be scammy? Ooops, you scrolled too far or used the back button and it's now gone.

There's a large swath of problems online that are clearly misinformation and / or disinformation. Nothing is going to improve on this front so long as "platforms" are wholly unaccountable to the general public. And we're running blindly forward into making this far, far worse before anything will change now that generative AI lowers the bar to produce bullshit that looks convincing on the first pass.

Big tech disappoints me to no end.

By the way, how's that scammer SBF doing? I heard he managed to scam even more money than that funny YouTube ad, and I think he was advertising on mainstream media too. Even got to lobby in Congress.

This is still far from the leading mainstream narrative that "your fellow humans are stupid". By your anecdote I can learn that here we have another person who's capable of recognizing false information, therefore it isn't dangerous.

Anyone who fell for disinformation is welcome to step in and contribute an anecdote to the opposite statistics so maybe I'll be convinced people really are guillible and need protecting.

Somehow it's always other people who the speaker thinks are more stupid and will fall for something he sees as a scam.

Put a button in the corner of the ad that says "report this", and get a human to check if the ad passes a smell test. If a platform can cancel accounts of random people for violating policies at random, they can put a small amount of effort into enforcing policies on advertisers.

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.

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."

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.

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."

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.

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.

Due to which Tom Cruise talking in an ad had bigger impact.

Broadcasters don't act in the public interest either, they act in owner's interest.

The mob mentality is real and it makes its participants vulnerable to making bad decisions and going with the flow. We see this with the cult like devotion of Trump supporters. We see examples in consumerism. There was a time when people fought each other over a Cabbage Parch Doll. Our moments of lucid analysis of an issue or speech occur far less often than our moments of “going with the flow”.

Whether I agree with their final conclusion is irrelevant, I can't with straight face call a person who spent his time carefully considering his decisions less intelligent than a person who didn't spend a single moment to think about it. Even if they reached the wrong conclusion.

It's actually hilarious that you call them mob mentality. Going with the herd automatically is the most mob mentality possible.

Have you tried talking to Trump supporters before you assumed they are "cult" and "mob"?

You're exactly the kind of person I directed my post at. You've been successfully fooled into thinking other people are stupid without even trying to understand them.

And for the record, I think flat earthers are more intelligent than people who never even asked themselves how do we know that the earth is spherical. They are not intelligent because they couldn't understand the answer, but they are more intelligent than a person who never even asked the question.

The people I consider more intelligent than flat earthers tried asking this question, looked for the solution and could understand basic geometry enough to understand why it is true. Anyone else isn't more intelligent, just more conformal and knowledgeable. In the case of knowing the earth is flat, it's such well known fact it's just pure conformity never asking why, and I don't value that at all. It's not an intelligent trait.

Ah. The, “they did their research” and “read lots of words” retort. It’s ok that almost all of it is wrong. What matters is that they read a lot. They thought a lot about it! The thoughts were completely wrong but quantity over quality, right?

Consider this. What does it say about you that you think people with no knowledge of or training in virology can legitimately said to have conducted research into the efficacy of vaccines?

I have not successfully been fooled into thinking that people are dumb. All of us are dumb in certain areas. All of us can be manipulated. All of us are susceptible to false information. (Read up on the Gell-Mann amnesia effect as an example of this.)

It is absolutely an intelligent trait to rely on the expert knowledge of others. Hence, flat earthers are incredibly dumb. The knowledge that the Earth is spheroidal has been known for many hundreds of years. Another example. Almost everyone knows that 1+1=2 despite the fact that very few people can actually prove it. It is not intelligence to question this fact. It is intelligence to ask how to prove it and even more intelligence to understand the proof.

An intelligent person doesn’t question the efficacy of vaccines. The evidence of their efficacy is plain to see by the fact that polio is virtually nonexistent. An intelligent person asks why are vaccines effective. How do they work? Etc.

Any fool can ask questions. Asking the right questions requires some perspicacity.

The very first step to being an intelligent person is not being afraid to ask questions.

The second step is trying to understand it even if you might reach the wrong result.

Only if you passed those first two steps you even have the hope of answering the question correctly.

And even a child can prove that 1+1=2, and if you're such an NPC you think it's hard to prove, I honestly find flat earthers more intelligent.

Ironically, you're acting like such a bot that you're actually quite good at contradicting my point. You're begging the question (like "why are vaccines effective"). You don't look for understanding but for knowledge to remember then repeat.

I always value more the person who tried and failed than the person who never tried. I don't think a layperson can conduct academic research, but I think they can try to understand.

And I think that those who tried to understand yet reached the wrong conclusion are still much better than those who never tried.

There are no right questions, only right answers.

A point that does not pertain to what I said. I said nothing about “right” questions. There are dumb questions though. There are insightful questions. There are probing questions. There are nonsensical questions too. Like this question, “If vaccines are good for us then why do we have a bicameral legislative branch?”

A person not trained in virology or microbiology is absolutely unqualified to discern the difference between good information and bad information on the topic of vaccines. Such a person can’t possibly do anything that can be reasonably ascribed to “having done the research”. A person who has “done the research” and concludes that vaccines are bad is a fool no matter how many thousands of words or thoughts they devoted to the topic.

As a child this would have cracked me up (made me laugh very hard). Today it makes me cringe b/c I've heard similar arguments used to cripple the teaching of mathematics in schools.

synetic says "A person not trained in virology or microbiology is absolutely unqualified to discern the difference between good information and bad information on the topic of vaccines."

What about statistics: don't you need a Ph.D. in statistics to understand what is a good statistical measure and what is not and how to design trials?

What about logic and science? don't you need a Ph.D. in philosophy and either an M.D. or a Ph.D. in chemistry or biology to understand the logic of the complex systems that you must analyze to develop vaccines?

There's a lot missing here. Another is how people think: very few people distrust all vaccines but an incredibly large group of people distrust certain vaccines. And I believe you've mistaken certification for understanding. Too many things wrong and/or broken; impossible to fix; waste of time.

Sad.

How many children are capable of this level of abstract thinking?

People without training in statistics don’t understand how to properly design trials. I’m a mathematician and I don’t understand this since it is not something I’ve studied. I need to rely on the expert knowledge of others to tell what is and is not a good study design.

The large group of people that distrust certain vaccines rather than all of them are ignoramuses.

Presumably the "first order Peano Axioms" were noted sometime after Giuseppe Peano's birth in 1858. By your logic no one born before 1858 would be "capable of understanding how to prove 1+1=2", which is nonsense.

You seriously underrate everyone except yourself.

It seems hard to argue with that...but what exactly is the meaning of saying people are "absolutely unqualified" to do something which they in fact do constantly and which there is no obvious alternative in order for society to function?

If we accept that non-experts are not qualified to determine what is good information, then doesn't it entirely undermine democratic control over society?

For that matter, doesn't it entirely undermine the concept of management in industry or government? Individual autonomy and rights too?

Again, I'm not saying you are wrong, or that I have a counterargument, just that the logical implications seem extremely radical, and I don't know of a plan for how society can function on such a basis.

In my opinion the answer is this. Roughly speaking, in general: Overwhelming expert consensus opinion on a topic has a much higher chance of being correct than any contrary belief I have based off of “research” that I do. The overwhelming expert consensus might very well be wrong but it’s clear that they are way more likely to be right than I am.

Also, you have heard of "100 Autoren Gegen Einstein"? Obviously people who bring that up in an actual conflict of ideas are almost certainly not Einstein, but how do we know, and if we think we know who is right and it is the majority, how do we refute the claim that polls don't determine truth?

You inability to understand what is irrelevant complication, and your deferral to authority and expertise even when you are perfectly capable of understanding, is your own problem.

Here are two quote you said:

> "(There are no right questions, only right answers.)

A point that does not pertain to what I said. I said nothing about “right” questions."

> "Asking the right questions requires some perspicacity."

You also say "The thoughts were completely wrong". There are also no wrong thoughts, only wrong conclusions. A person afraid to "think" wrongly as the narrative so strongly tries to program people, is infinitely dumber than a person who doesn't constrain his thinking. That's what they want to happen. Amazing there are NPCs like you who avoid "wrongthink".

There are people who know a lot and understand nothing. Knowledge is spewing up complications from set theory. Understanding is being able to tell, by the context, that this is completely irrelevant.

You appealed to authority to even tell me that the earth is flat. You didn't say that we can observe the curvature from measuring distances, from doing an experiment with ships masts disappearing into the horizon, or any other way even ancient people figured it out. It's true because "The knowledge that the Earth is spheroidal has been known for many hundreds of years. ".

People "knew" the sun rotates around earth for thousand of years. And the truth won despite it being against the "authority". And nothing will change that understanding, even if some string theory will discover the 11th dimension or whatever, because that will be irrelevant in the same sense that set theory is irrelevant to 1+1=2. For these same reasons you don't need and shouldn't appeal to authority.

Appeal to authority is only knowledge. Zero understanding.

I said nothing about "doing the research". A person who deferred to authority and knowledge to answer a question is always inferior to a person who tried to understand and failed. A person appealing to authority is just trying to mirror someone's intelligence. A parrot who repeats a correct sentence is still dumber than a human saying a wrong sentence.

A parrot who repeats "vaccines are good" because he heard that is always the greater fool than the anti vax who says vaccines are bad.

A parrot who says 1+1=2 because set theory shows less understanding than a kid with an abacus. The parrot is saying irrelevant things while the child isn't.

Everyone appeals to authority in the sense you use this phrase because no one has the time to to argue out everything from first principles. In a discussion about why flat earthers are wrong I’d make an argument that shows they are wrong. In a discussion about misinformation and how easily duped people are in general I wouldn’t make such an argument since it isn’t pertinent.

A person who thinks "flat earthers are stupid" because "everyone knows", and not because of the actual reasons this is true, is not smarter. The flat earther also knows everyone knows the earth is round. You didn't display any knowledge they don't have.

How can you tell the earth is round is a pretty insightful question. The difference between us is that I understand that people coming to recognize truth from falsehood, including making mistakes and falling in the way, is more important than reaching the correct result. Which is why I'm not afraid of disinformation, because I think people need to not be afraid to think and ask questions and take a path where they don't get the correct result right away.

Mine while, you wish for people to avoid thinking and defer to authority. It's extremely relevant, it's at the core of my argument, that's what this discussion is all about.

The system failed the flat earther not because it prevented the false information from reaching them. The system failed to properly educate them to recognize truth from falsehood, and instead taught them, like your attitude, to rely on authority. The only difference between you is that their trust in authority has stopped. And their reasoning is bad because they never used them.

Sad.

People, as a whole, are still against censorship in its raw form, silencing people, burning books, etc. However once a book or video or idea is labeled "disinformation" it becomes dangerous, which means (according to the people doing the labeling) that NOT removing/eliminating it would be irresponsible or harmful.