This is more like, I jump down from the mount Everest, and the news is I hurt myself. Which raises a bit the question of the purpose of the news.

„The EU publishes a plan“ - „oh no, Hungary blocked the plan“

„The EU publishes a plan“ - „oh no, Hungary blocked the plan“

„The EU publishes a plan“ - „oh no, Hungary blocked the plan“

What is this supposed to achieve? It just makes Hungary look important and the EU dysfunctional. In this case it also signals that „the EU wants to help, but it can’t“ which may or may not be part of the initial plan, given that outcome is already known. But it could also be a bureaucratic necessity.

Maybe it’s the title „plan in jeopardy“ which implies that the plan assumed his approval.

But why is it news, it’s completely predictable and the EU is unlikely to not assume it

Do they understand what they mean with civilization themselves? It sometimes feels like they want to go back to the middle ages, which tends to be the opposite of what is understood as „civilization“.

A dictionary definition of civilization: „stage of human social and cultural development and organization that is considered most advanced“. Seems to me that we can include democracy in western civilization.

I’m just highlighting the hypocrisy of bringing up civilizational erasure when they’re actively doing exactly that. Western civilization, while associated with whites and capitalism is also associated with not being banana republics.

They might soon cause new bigger refugee waves from Iran. Which helps right wing parties.

What civilization are we talking about anyway? E.g democracy, checks and balances and human rights are hallmarks of modern western civilization, and those are being rapidly erased by those accusing us of civilizational erasure.

Tiktok alternatives can be developed too. The one and only issue is always just network effects.

That’s what „flood the zone“ ultimately means. It’s effectively no different than the other solution usually proposed, which is banning social media. Except than bans can be avoided, people will seek to challenge them, etc.

It depends on how you present it. It doesn’t have to be „boring good“. And even then you can still work e.g. on the comment area (reactive, not original content).

What if you don’t use it as only measure? You launch 2 things in parallel: 1. neutralization: flood the zone, exhaust everyone, 2. provide a solution: sane channels that make clear how thinking, fact checking and honest dialogue are the only way out.

I think that flooding the zone with alternative slop would have a neutralizing effect. At the end everyone gets exhausted, which is a better outcome than allowing right wing slop to spread completely unhindered. Of course people will then start protecting their spaces, moderating the slop they don’t like, but you‘d at least have neutralized the public spaces, which would be a win.

That would be for people that are trusting the original AI.

It could, among other things, link to sources.

It doesn’t even have to be accurate. It suffices if it makes clear that there are different perspectives, or that you simply can’t trust anything. People exhausted by contradicting slop is a better outcome than allowing only one type of slop to take over.

Oh no what are we going to do… a far right AI-avatar! People know that you can create 10000+ left, center, etc. AI-avatars, as well as fact checking AI-avatars debunking what this one says, right?