AI Regulation of Message Content Coming to a Newsgroup Near You

"A December 2016 Pew Research Center study found that about two-in-three U.S. adults (64%) say fabricated news stories cause a great deal of confusion about the basic facts of current issues and events."

"A May 2016 Pew Research Center report showed that 62% of Americans get their news from social media."

Is there a connection perhaps?

John :-#(#

There is no such thing as "Social Media", because there is nothing

Can we get one here to filter out non-electronicism?

George H.

I'd vote for that. It's only people like Gardner and Bill Sloman posting their bare-faced lies in the first place that make it impossible for me to let such ignorance stand unchallenged.

-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

Cursitor Doom gets his lies from Russia Today and the Daily Mail, and resents being shown up a gullible idiot. He puts a public service face on his resentment, but it's about as convincing as the rest of his output.

Presumably you would want any such filter to include /only/ Putin's propaganda based sources such as Russia Today.

Why? Because you emitted:

On 31/08/17 22:59, Cursitor Doom wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 11:22:14 -0700, lonmkusch wrote: > >> While you're deciding, I think I'm going to stroll over to RT for some >> good unbiased news. > > If you can't see that RT is a zillion times more reputable as a news > source than CNN/NBC/BBC et al, you must be totally blind. Sure they > aren't 100% impartial; no news organisation is. But they are my most > trusted news source even if not yours - until such time as I ever > discover otherwise, of course.