you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I think the article really makes the point that it doesn't matter. The videos can LITERALLY have a watermark on them from the AI software, and people just dgaf. The battle is lost before it begins.

As with things like quotes and claims that could always be fake, it's back to the old journalistic practices of verifying sources with a second source. But that means being ignorant of things that were not being investigated by journalists, which creates a different filter bubble.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    it’s back to the old journalistic practices of verifying sources with a second source.

    that has as a necessary pre-requirement that people are actually interested enough in an objective truth that they're willing to pay some journalist to do the research.

    is that really the case anymore? I can see it being useful in the 20th century when people were interested in new economic developments and stuff

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Journalists don't verify anything these days, because their bosses are focused on being the first to publish. Doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, the article only exists to get the advertising to load.

  • source
  • parent