|
Any time I try to search for anything now, half the top results are clearly AI generated spam articles, often even when I'm searching truly obscure errata. I'd suggest nationalizing twitter as a first step but we'd need to figure out how to reconcile the 1st amendment with the paradox of tolerance. Systematically, at scale.
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2024 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
Typo posted:just append "reddit" to your search will instantly improve results I mean we could also nationalize Google and stop selling advertising on it at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2024 19:23
|
|
|
Typo posted:yeah when twitter first came out I was pretty optimistic about the democraization of information etc I mean it *can*. Wikipedia is still doing pretty well overall, and provides a perfectly usable model . . .so long as you have a low cost to operate and can rely on philanthropy and manage to avoid having anyone interested in rent extraction in your leadership So yeah I usually just add "wiki" to all my searches now
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2024 19:26
|
|
|
Typo posted:Wikipedia depends on an enormous amount of moderation by volunteers Oh no sorry I meant the Wikipedia model as an alternative to nationalization. Private nonprofit foundation relying on charitable rather than capitalistic support. In reality though such models are dependent on leadership. The minute Jimmy Wales dies and the next CEO starts trying to charge money for "optimized" Wikipedia pages, it's over.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2024 19:34
|
|
|
WarpedLichen posted:I think Wikipedia is in a dangerous spot that it's been pretty good on a broad range of subjects for a long time that people forget that it's edited largely by internet nobodies and is subject to the same stresses as every other source. They even have a page detailing the historical challenges: Oh sure no system is perfectible. I'm just looking for examples of systems that have proven able to function without obvious corruption, financial collapse, or what Cory doctorow has been referring to as "enshittification". Reddit is also worth looking at yeah. There's a reason we keep adding "Reddit" or "wiki" to our searches. What's that reason and can we adapt it out to other media?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2024 20:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The reason is that instead of paying people to produce or moderate content, Reddit and Wikipedia just rely on volunteer armies of obsessive nerds constantly fighting each other for gamified clout. StackOverflow too. I mean, yes. It's pretty terrible. But it seems to be the best available option, largely because it is driven by a nonprofit model. Unless anyone has a better proposal, that's your viable model for modern journalism. Reddit and Wikipedia.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2024 04:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
Typo posted:neither of which actually produces original content insofar you are talking about news, they just aggregate/source existing ones. The entire model of wikipedia relies on sourcing content other people produced That's a fair point, but there is a certain amount of original content produced on Reddit (hell, virtually everything on Buzzfeed is cannibalized Reddit threads from AmItheAsshole or other popular subs). Similarly, before it was captured, Twitter often functioned as an aggregator of on the ground first hand reports from bystanders or volunteers. So it's not impossible to imagine other models of viable journalism along those lines. Deeply flawed and problematic in many ways, sure, but checking the threshold boxes of minimally viable and minimally journalistic. Again the test threshold posited for the thread is "viable" not "good."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2024 13:56
|
|