I’m not sure that it really matters though. How could it be any more “dangerous” than headlines (which we have now)?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

It could take an article and totally leave out certain information to make it one sided. It could be programmed to flag things as "fake news."

It is like trusting a single editor to curate every single media outlet.

Then you’d quickly notice a pattern and not use it 🤷‍♂️

You'd think so but reality tells us that the majority of the population is fairly oblivious to bias that conforms to their beliefs. And centralised editiorial control of all news without open source just seems like a bad thing to me.

It’s not centralized control of all media though. We’re talking about two-sentence summaries.

If widely deployed to "normie" social media it would rapidly become the primary method by which the majority of the population consumes their news.

But we’re back to my original question: how is that worse than headlines-only which we have now?

I don’t think it is, and it gives everyone else more info to make decisions.

It's centralised

Exactly. No need to complicate things just a basic summary without an opinion.

“Author describes … and supports his opinion with …” example.

Exactly

And we can only be responsible for ourselves. I don’t think it’s right for us to police things for other people. I guess that’s part of why I’m here.