How do I know this entire thing isn't AI generated?
Why can't we just have a third party vetting service for true content, where the content is labeled with a serial number and URL, and I can just look it up on the third party service's site to confirm it's validity (and if the content has no serial number watermarked on it, then I just ignore it as false)???
To check on the basic facts you could have a look at the "related articles" in the YT video description. There you'll find an item from Bellingcat, a fairly well respected source. They state:
This joint investigation by Bellingcat, Der Spiegel, The Insider and La Repubblica, was conducted over the course of 10 months.
If don't trust Bellingcat and you want to dig further you contact Der Spiegel, et al, to see if they know anything about this. And follow up any other sources they mention. Of course, where do you stop? The more sources you check the harder it is to claim that each source is part of a wider conspiracy, but it's hard work. Given the track record of Bellingcat I'm inclined to believe they know what they are doing, but that's just my personal level of paranoia. YMMV.
> third party vetting service
You left out the "trustable" adjective, and that's the killer.
...Yeah, for the 10's of articles I actually read in a day (at least with cobcern about their validity) that amount of homework would probably blow up my screen time by 5X, and result in my divorce.
"You left out the "trustable" adjective, and that's the killer."
Agreed. If there were a simple 3rd party vetting service that currenlty trusted purveyor's of news used religiously, that in and of itself would allow me to trust said third party validator for other, perhaps non-mainstrem channels, and not trust thos who didn't use the 3rd party validator.
I'm just saying - there's a high demand for trust. One could argue that the currency of the forseable future is indeed "trust".
Trust is highly subjective. A lot of people trust certain "flagship" sources like The Times (UK), NY Times, BBC, RussiaToday, Aljazeera, Reuters, etc, but they can have wildly different viewpoints on a particular point of news, yet they are all "trusted" by large numbers of people.
I understand that you want there to be a single source of news/opinion that everyone agrees is trustable, and that would be desirable, but in this era and any foreseeable future that's like wanting world peace: very desirable but ultimately unachievable for a myriad of reasons.
How do I know this entire thing isn't AI generated?
Why can't we just have a third party vetting service for true content, where the content is labeled with a serial number and URL, and I can just look it up on the third party service's site to confirm it's validity (and if the content has no serial number watermarked on it, then I just ignore it as false)???
To check on the basic facts you could have a look at the "related articles" in the YT video description. There you'll find an item from Bellingcat, a fairly well respected source. They state:
This joint investigation by Bellingcat, Der Spiegel, The Insider and La Repubblica, was conducted over the course of 10 months.
If don't trust Bellingcat and you want to dig further you contact Der Spiegel, et al, to see if they know anything about this. And follow up any other sources they mention. Of course, where do you stop? The more sources you check the harder it is to claim that each source is part of a wider conspiracy, but it's hard work. Given the track record of Bellingcat I'm inclined to believe they know what they are doing, but that's just my personal level of paranoia. YMMV.
> third party vetting service
You left out the "trustable" adjective, and that's the killer.
...Yeah, for the 10's of articles I actually read in a day (at least with cobcern about their validity) that amount of homework would probably blow up my screen time by 5X, and result in my divorce.
"You left out the "trustable" adjective, and that's the killer."
Agreed. If there were a simple 3rd party vetting service that currenlty trusted purveyor's of news used religiously, that in and of itself would allow me to trust said third party validator for other, perhaps non-mainstrem channels, and not trust thos who didn't use the 3rd party validator.
I'm just saying - there's a high demand for trust. One could argue that the currency of the forseable future is indeed "trust".
Trust is highly subjective. A lot of people trust certain "flagship" sources like The Times (UK), NY Times, BBC, RussiaToday, Aljazeera, Reuters, etc, but they can have wildly different viewpoints on a particular point of news, yet they are all "trusted" by large numbers of people.
I understand that you want there to be a single source of news/opinion that everyone agrees is trustable, and that would be desirable, but in this era and any foreseeable future that's like wanting world peace: very desirable but ultimately unachievable for a myriad of reasons.
Christo Grozev is a former member of the Navalny team and now journalist for Der Spiegel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christo_Grozev
Christo Grozev was also featured in the documentary Navalny, that was awarded with Oskar in documentary category.