>You think governments have the ability to combat misinformation without living in some Orwellian-esque regime
yes. Of course it can and has been abused, but if we use that line of thinking we'd have zero government.
>If we could even start by labeling misinformation properly, then maybe we could do something about it.
I agree. It's very case by case, but I'd hope in this case that "flooded with fake images [about war]", i.e. propaganda, is at least one of these cases where you do want governments (emphasis on plural)to intervene. Especially as AI will only hasten the ability to generate such propaganda.
>"Misinformation" hardly fits into that in its current state.
misinformation fit into all 3 aspects you mention, though. misinformation has harmed people, regardless of your political spectrum we should be able to agree with this. And the ability to process the proper facts does keep things fair over who has the "hottest memes" or exploits SEO the best for their goals.
Misinformation has not harmed people. Stupid people have believed stupid things at face value and acted on that information.
Information cannot harm. Only inform. For better or for worse. If you are too stupid and get duped by incorrect information, that's on you. No one else.
By the same logic, drugs and gambling never harmed anyone. Every party agrees and partakers in the activity. At what point is it deemed suitable for the government to step in and say gambling is illegal?
>If you are too stupid and get duped by incorrect information, that's on you. No one else.
You and all your victims apparently. The family that may not be able to escape you, the people you prejudice against or even assault over your zealous beliefs, the town you vote or even assign new policy directly to. Maybe even the planet you impact l. If stupid people kept to themselves a lot of laws and regulations wouldn't need to exist. But my country did need 200 years just to consider a woman a "voting citizen" after all.
> By the same logic, drugs and gambling never harmed anyone. Every party agrees and partakers in the activity. At what point is it deemed suitable for the government to step in and say gambling is illegal?
Not sure how that pertains to the argument at hand?
> You and all your victims apparently. The family that may not be able to escape you, the people you prejudice against or even assault over your zealous beliefs, the town you vote or even assign new policy directly to. Maybe even the planet you impact l. If stupid people kept to themselves a lot of laws and regulations wouldn't need to exist. But my country did need 200 years just to consider a woman a "voting citizen" after all.
yes. Of course it can and has been abused, but if we use that line of thinking we'd have zero government.
>If we could even start by labeling misinformation properly, then maybe we could do something about it.
I agree. It's very case by case, but I'd hope in this case that "flooded with fake images [about war]", i.e. propaganda, is at least one of these cases where you do want governments (emphasis on plural)to intervene. Especially as AI will only hasten the ability to generate such propaganda.
>"Misinformation" hardly fits into that in its current state.
misinformation fit into all 3 aspects you mention, though. misinformation has harmed people, regardless of your political spectrum we should be able to agree with this. And the ability to process the proper facts does keep things fair over who has the "hottest memes" or exploits SEO the best for their goals.