On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 10:54:34 -0400 tug <tug.willi...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...] > If the solution is charitably donate to news sources you like, then > the outcome will be that the narrative of the richest will prevail. I don't see how that follows. Plenty of ordinary people used to subscribe to newspapers and magazines before the Internet. Did that skew the narrative? Maybe? It didn't seem to be a problem back then. [...] > If aggregators were banned, or if they decide to take their balls > away, because we don't want to play their rules, people would still > find their news. Us older types managed to, even before the internet > existed. It's impossible to ban aggregators, but in Canada, news organizations have no choice but to stop playing ball. Which I guess might be healthier in the long run. Relying on a platform you don't own is always dangerous. > Personally I use bookmarks to sites I trust - including sites I trust > to be less moral and more deceitful, because it is always important > to understand the narrative others might be consuming. Yep, I have about 8-10 news sites I visit on a regular basis. > > So now that they've gone and destroyed journalism, > They haven't destroyed journalism. Journalism is a profession and > attitude that will never be destroyed. Well. Journalism as a way to make a living has been practically destroyed. Small towns that used to support newspapers just can't now. Sure, there are still jobs for journalists... but just a fraction of what there once were. > At its best, journalism is a science. Like science, you have good and > bad journalists. Like science, journalism needs financing. And like > science, if financed for commercial benefit only, then results risk > being skewed. You still need to pay people if you want consistent, good journalism. It's all very well to have passion for something, but you have to eat too. [...] > Most scientific research is funded by government grants and > non-profit charities, for the benefit of all. Can journalism be > partially funded, and regulated for quality, integrity, and variety? That opens up a whole can of worms. Mention "Government funding and regulation of journalism" and see how enthusiastically *that* is received. :) Funding, maybe. But regulation? News organizations would (rightly) revolt. > We regulate the essentials of our society. Banks, military, courts, > transportation. As irritating and flawed as those regulations can be, > they are essential. Sure, but with journalism you have freedom of expression issues. You also have the fact that journalists are supposed to hold the government to account, so if they are being regulated by the very government that they're supposed to hold to account... that's a problem. [...] > It seems to me that the de-facto effect of AI is to obfuscate theft. > You cannot reverse engineer where they got their data from, so you > cannot demand payment. I agree. > What AI doesn't do, in it's current incarnation, is grow. It isn't > modelling the human mind. It doesn't understand the human condition. > It is modelling presentation. I agree, but the mindless pablum AI churns out might be considered "good enough" by the people with money and power. > If writers and actors stop writing and acting, then there won't be > new input. The wealth of data currently available will be static, so > AI products will just be a mush of what placates the financially > exploitable brain. Watching media will be as innovative as recanting > a Latin mass every Sunday. Yes. And do you think movie studios will care, if they keep raking in profits? > Humans create. It is what we enjoy doing. Absolutely. But creators are not paid their worth. I left software development for standup comedy and theatre. Fulfilled my creative needs. Absolutely idiotic from a financial point of view. [...] > > Greed has enshittified the Internet and allowed tech giants to > > become more powerful than nation-states. > Nation states still have a major advantage. They can create laws, if > voters don't object too much, and if our elected representatives have > enough imagination. I know, rather significant "if"s. Yes, nation-states ultimately have the advantage because they have, well, armies and such. But IMO, the tech giants have become dangerously powerful... powerful enought to actually start challenging some nation-states. > I hope that Facebook's attempt to thump disobedient Canada fails. I > believe states that protect the creativity of their society will > flourish, those that don't will stagnate. Yep. > > Without breaking up tech giants and severely > > regulating their actions, we're all royally fucked. > I agree that regulation is essential, but breaking up doesn't matter > so much. When was the last time you worried much about IBM? IBM was seriously threatened with breakup starting in 1969 and it modified its behavior accordingly. Nobody has seriously threatened Google or Meta in that way. > We are our grandparents! The 1970s is a very long time ago. In fact, > more shockingly, the 1990s is a very long time ago! Yes. > The current generation will find different solutions. We had to use > creativity when books were not immediately to hand. The current > generation doesn't even need to remember why a "bookshelf" is called > a "bookshelf". The current generation (at least in my opinion) is facing problems on a much more serious and pressing scale than we did... the housing crisis, climate change, and wild spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories were just not things that concerned us when I was in my 20s. > Let's start with "one email server per home", and whittle away from > there. Agreed! Take back control of your online services! Regards, Dianne. To unsubscribe send a blank message to linux+unsubscr...@linux-ottawa.org To get help send a blank message to linux+h...@linux-ottawa.org To visit the archives: https://lists.linux-ottawa.org
