Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Lauren Weinstein (lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org)'s status on Saturday, 31-Jan-2026 01:24:20 JST Lauren Weinstein

   MS NOW (formerly MSNBC) aired AI-edited image of Alex Pretti that made
   him "more handsome" -- claims they didn't know it was altered

   • Rich Felker repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 31-Jan-2026 01:24:17 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • Mark T. Tomczak

     @mark @lauren It's been the case for at least a decade that the only credible sources are people we know through our social graphs of trust to have domain expertise and shared values.

     "Professional" news may give us awareness of some happenings that intersect with the interests of power and of what power is trying to direct the public eye towards, but it can't be trusted with its takes on any of these things or with detailed facts.

   • Embed this notice
     Mark T. Tomczak (mark@mastodon.fixermark.com)'s status on Saturday, 31-Jan-2026 01:24:19 JST Mark T. Tomczak

     in reply to

     @lauren Turns out AI is more an existential threat to traditional news than I had considered.

     Ultimately, if the news professional cannot tell AI editing from an authentic article... What use do we, the audience, have for the professional? Because I can get doctored images of what's going on in Minneapolis from my uncle for free.

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 31-Jan-2026 01:30:18 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • Mark T. Tomczak

     @mark @lauren Yes, it's very unfortunate, but that's where we are.

   • Embed this notice
     Mark T. Tomczak (mark@mastodon.fixermark.com)'s status on Saturday, 31-Jan-2026 01:30:19 JST Mark T. Tomczak

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker

     @dalias @lauren Unfortunately, that process is extremely broken because it results in us only having access to truth proportional to the integrity of our peer groups.

     If I, the ignorant, have to evaluate which of my peers has domain expertise (and, more importantly, a compulsion to be correct, not just seem correct)... Well actually, that explains a lot about where we are now, does it not?

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 31-Jan-2026 01:32:12 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • Mark T. Tomczak

     @mark @lauren Twitter was very effective at surfacing such expertise and letting folks build and see the graphs to know who to trust and who to distrust. That's why it was bought and razed.

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 31-Jan-2026 01:42:05 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • Mark T. Tomczak

     @lauren @mark I'm not claiming it's good or that such a system automatically produces trustworthy information. Just that it's presently the only way to get trustworthy information, and depends on having a trusted & trustworthy graph (which most people don't).

   • Embed this notice
     Lauren Weinstein (lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org)'s status on Saturday, 31-Jan-2026 01:42:06 JST Lauren Weinstein

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • Mark T. Tomczak

     @dalias @mark The persistence of the 40% of so of the U.S. population that is in the "Fox News" ecosystem misinformation filter bubble demonstrates that "peer based" information channels can horrifically misinformation laden.

   • Embed this notice
     Lauren Weinstein (lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org)'s status on Saturday, 31-Jan-2026 01:45:50 JST Lauren Weinstein

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • Mark T. Tomczak

     @dalias @mark Twitter only served to solidify preexisting views. A social graph replete with misinformation just perpetuates it.

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 31-Jan-2026 01:45:50 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • Mark T. Tomczak

     @lauren @mark When Twitter was at its best, every time there was a significantly false narrative in top MSM-covered story, refutations from people with domain expertise/firsthand knowledge were trending within hours. It didn't depend on everyone's graphs being great, just sufficient portions. Yes it was also subject to manipulation for other purposes and had lots of flaws.