And of course they will be the ones choosing what is and isn’t misinformation.
seeing a lot of upvotes here and thats understandable because kneejerk reactions are fun, but there is literally zero information in the article.
if I were to try and fill in the blanks (cuz the article is full of them), I would say that Obama is calling for a way to verify orginal content of data and date. easily done and has zero privacy implications for a publishing author and likely neither the content consumer. as a validation/verification technique, it also has minimal effects on censorship - at the risk of info without validation data becoming second class.
the idea of widespread
sign(hash(content+timestamp))is an interesting one worth discussing. the OP article, however, is just plain bad.
a clearly biased story from a clearly biased site. be careful out there, people.
Are you thinking the quotes are not correctly attributed?
no clue on the quotes.
as I stated in a different thread, the issue with the article is its low-information with a lot of nebulous “scary” words and obvious political biases. the parent site is even worse (imho).
take from the article what you will, but it offers no attempt at clarification and is instead basically a very poor opinion piece masquerading as news.
thats my take. yours may be different.
Feels like the old days of reddit and imgur when sketchy news sites were commonly posted
