When you realize how much astroturf is going into Reddit, most social media platforms, and the efforts to manipulate wikipedia for political gain, this is a very real problem.
And it’s one that already affects Google’s AI results, whether intentional or not. 9/10 if a Reddit thread or scraped StackExchange clone’s search result is in the top of the list, the AI answer pretty much parrots it.
This has led to many a “that doesn’t sound right” when looking things up with friends, or odd technical questions that have serviceable information available but not at the top of results.
But to just inject a little optimism - the problem was substantially bigger before the internet. Previously it was possible to coordinate the astroturfing across the entire media landscape. Nowadays it is much harder because anyone can get information out to the world - at least in theory.
I think the opposite. Automation and scale made it possible to cheaply influence way more people. Information bubbles mean people are more convinced than ever.
Before you had one big influencer, usually the state, manipulating the news of your country. The alternative players were more trustworthy, because they had to if they wanted to keep credibility.
Now, any big company can buy a narrative when they need one. No reputation matters. No memory. No consequences for the long run.
> Before you had one big influencer, usually the state, manipulating the news of your country. The alternative players were more trustworthy, because they had to if they wanted to keep credibility.
There isn't much in the way of evidence that is true. What we discovered when the internet came around is that the major players in the public sphere are generally low-credibility and just keep repeating that they are credible over and over again. As more diverse alternatives appear with the internet that narrative has been struggling. The new replacements have proven to be low-quality and a lot better than what they are overtaking.
The US discourse is a fascinating example of this where the traditional narrative setters may have gone legitimately crazy trying to rationalise how they're part of the reasonable and credible crowd and they just got rolled by Trump screaming that they were liars and that Mexico was going to pay for a border wall. That's what US voters thought looked like a better bet than these traditionally credible alternatives.
Taking into account our mediocre human nature, I wonder how much is actually true in what we say and believe (but can't even count on (human) statistic to answer that one, can't wait for AGI)
Manipulation and misinformation on Wikipedia have been happening for many years (based on my personal experience trying to correct facts). I'm not referencing politics per se, though political views certainly impact Wikipedia since source material, these days, often has a political bias. I'm talking about business facts that get manipulated for that business's benefits.
How does that saying go? If you can't identify the mark in the room, you're the mark. Diligence and a good amount of skepticism serve you well before AI, and certainly post-AI.
The Wiki has been a highly contested political/propaganda ground since its inception. My personal opinion is that it pretty much has endured just because the generation that formed the community back then was probably less susceptible to bias manipulation through social channels, because they didn't exist to this extent.
A famous case is the CAMERA's takeover of key administrator positions in Wikipedia back in 2008, but in local communities it went probably unnoticed.
This has led to many a “that doesn’t sound right” when looking things up with friends, or odd technical questions that have serviceable information available but not at the top of results.