Tech Platforms Prioritize AI Leadership Over Content Moderation, Fueling Deception

Key Quotes

"We're gonna get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes simplifying our policies and restoring free expression on our platforms Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg first we're gonna get rid of fact checkers and replace them with community notes similar to X starting in the US after Trump first got elected in 2016 the legacy media wrote nonstop about how misinformation was a threat to democracy we tried in good faith to address those concerns without becoming the arbiters of truth but the fact checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they've created especially in the US"

Brooke Gladstone highlights Mark Zuckerberg's stated rationale for replacing fact-checkers with community notes on Meta's platforms. Zuckerberg argues that fact-checkers have been too politically biased and have eroded trust, suggesting a move towards a less moderated approach to restore "free expression." This indicates a strategic shift in content moderation policy driven by perceived political bias and a desire to distance the platform from being an "arbiter of truth."

"It becomes very clear to at least platforms that they need to make sure they get out of the way so that whatever content he wants to have out there can be out there and same from his supporters and from his like minded politicians leading countries around the world because I think Trump made it clear he will come after them he mused about putting Zuckerberg in jail so I think that's the big trigger and because most of these platforms are based in the US what happens in the US cascades around the world"

Craig Silverman explains that the re-election of Donald Trump served as a significant catalyst for platforms like Meta to reduce moderation. Silverman argues that the perceived threat of political retaliation from Trump, including potential legal action against executives, prompted these companies to "get out of the way" and allow more content to be published freely. This suggests that political pressure, rather than purely content-related concerns, heavily influenced the rollback of moderation policies.

"The reframing of fact checking and speech of a journalistic nature as censorship was a pretty good judo trick and it was effective in the US I'm Canadian and so I'm going to use a hockey reference here which is that a lot of people say the NHL is a copycat league the team that wins the Stanley Cup one year everybody tries to sort of copycat their roster and it probably happens in other sports leagues and I think it's true with tech platforms look at how much they have all invested in running and building the same types of AI products and it's the same thing around this so called censorship they're all copying each other because they think that is the safe thing to do but also they think maybe that's where the next big boom is coming from"

Brooke Gladstone analyzes the strategic framing of fact-checking as censorship. Gladstone likens this tactic to a "judo trick" that proved effective in the US, suggesting it was a deliberate reframing to gain an advantage. She further draws a parallel to sports leagues copying successful strategies, arguing that tech platforms are mirroring each other's approaches to content moderation and AI development, viewing it as a safe and potentially lucrative path forward.

"The problem is when we at Indicator looked into the state of these community notes programs the big one on X and then the big new one on Meta we found that there's some real problems Meta hasn't invested much in it there's very few people in the program there's very few notes being applied as a replacement for fact checkers in the US it seems like it's really far away from doing that and then there's X which is the template and X similarly doesn't seem to be investing a lot in it there are fewer and fewer notes being rated helpful so people who are participating are actually not seeing the end result and they've opened it up to bots now so that it won't be very long before most of the notes that are getting appended are actually coming from automated AI oriented systems and so I think as a model it's turning into more of a fig leaf than an actual real good faith effort"

Craig Silverman presents findings from Indicator's investigation into community notes programs on X and Meta. Silverman argues that these programs are not effectively replacing fact-checkers due to a lack of investment, low participation, and insufficient application of notes. He expresses concern that the systems are becoming a "fig leaf" rather than a genuine effort, especially with the increasing involvement of AI-driven bots, which undermines the credibility and good-faith nature of the initiative.

"The most common use that is really dangerous around this type of technology is for scams where someone can impersonate another person they can impersonate Elon Musk they can impersonate a famous movie star or politician and they can convince people that there's an amazing investment offer or something like that and there are people who are literally losing their entire life savings and having to sell their homes because they get sucked in by these things impersonation is also stealing money from corporations people are cloning the voices of executives or cloning the faces of executives and calling up other people in the company and getting them to transfer money and this stuff is legal as long as you are not infringing on someone's personal rights putting defamatory things in their mouth"

Brooke Gladstone details the dangerous applications of AI-driven impersonation technology. Gladstone explains how scammers use AI to impersonate well-known figures to deceive individuals into fraudulent investment schemes, leading to devastating financial losses. She also highlights corporate fraud, where executives' voices or likenesses are cloned to authorize illicit money transfers, noting that such actions are often legally permissible unless they involve defamation or infringe on personal rights.

"The truth is that we individually are the atomic units that these big tech platforms need they need our attention and they need us to spend time on them and so I really encourage people to think very consciously about where you are giving your attention and where you are spending your time I'm not going to tell you to get rid of all the social media on your phone but think about the fact that anytime you slow down on a piece of content and watch it or like it or share it that sends a signal to the system and it might get more people shown the same thing so being conscious of all of this stuff all of these threats all these risks and thinking about what you reward with your attention it's valuable so take your power put your attention where you feel good about it control where your eyes go and what you listen to and patronize the stuff that you think is worth it"

Craig Silverman offers advice on how individuals can navigate the current information environment. Silverman emphasizes that users are the fundamental "atomic units" for tech platforms, as their attention and time are valuable commodities. He encourages conscious decision-making about where attention is directed, suggesting that every interaction with content sends signals that influence what others see, and urges people to be mindful of what they reward with their attention.