Latest / The imuRgency Room / The AI Media Literacy Crisis

Transcript

The AI Media Literacy Crisis · The imuRgency Room

0:00
Did you know that martial law can be enacted if the government
0:02
shut down for more than a week? Did you know that Red 40 turns
0:04
your internal organs red and that if you breathe really,
0:06
really fast, you can give yourself a heart attack?
0:09
Well, no, you didn't, because none of these things are true.
0:13
None of it's true. It's beer.
0:15
Hey guys, slips emergency welcome.
0:16
Welcome back to my channel. As you may have gathered this
0:18
video will be talking about the phenomenon online that seems to
0:20
be the accumulation of the rise of anti intellectualism, spread
0:24
of misinformation and the bad faith actors that profit off of
0:27
this. Do not trust every influencer
0:29
you see tell you something online just because they say it
0:31
confidently and that includes me.
0:32
And I really hope with this video we learned that we owe it
0:34
to ourselves, keep ourselves informed and make educated
0:37
opinions and to have discernment and if anything do out of spite
0:41
of the powers that be that benefit from ignorance and
0:44
Internet rage bait. But it's time we talk about the
0:46
rise of misinformation online. Misinformation online is nothing
0:49
new really. But as technology and social
0:51
media platforms evolve, so do the channels in which
0:53
misinformation also evolve. And it's becoming harder and
0:56
harder to disprove. And actually not just harder to
0:59
disprove. It feels like a certain genetic
1:01
qua in the air that people just aren't as compelled to Fact
1:04
Check what they see online. And as we will get into, there
1:06
may be a few factors as to why it's also important to
1:09
understand the media landscape that we're dealing with right
1:11
now. According to the Pew Research
1:13
Center, one in five Americans not regularly get their news
1:15
from TikTok, which is surprisingly up from 2020.
1:18
But like, when you think about it, the app the administration
1:21
right now threatened to ban unless they control it is now
1:24
the source, not a reliable one, but a source nonetheless for
1:27
something that people are taking to be true regardless of its
1:30
credibility. Anyone could say anything on
1:32
TikTok. And the loss of credibility is
1:34
at an all time high. And you could see it in all
1:36
spheres, like we live in Times Now where now a man who's lived
1:39
in his mother's basement and hates women can start a podcast
1:42
about knowing about women and how you should treat them.
1:44
And people will still listen. Like, where are the credentials?
1:47
And obviously, this isn't some elitist BS, but you have to have
1:50
some sort of experience or at least education or
1:52
apprenticeship to know how to do certain jobs or else you end up
1:55
with the slap of information that we've been getting.
1:57
And this goes for any news topic, kind of like that
1:59
discourse that was happening a while ago about influencer
2:01
interviews for, like, movie press junkets or like, red
2:04
carpets, where they would ask insane, boring or just generally
2:07
inappropriate questions. And to that I say, yeah, no duh,
2:10
that happened because a lot of them aren't journalists.
2:12
Some of them are and some of them are very teeth, but the
2:14
majority of people taking those jobs at that time were not
2:16
journalists or have any experience doing that sort of
2:19
thing. Like that's a whole profession.
2:21
And it just feels like a few things are happening right now
2:23
that definitely inform each other.
2:24
For one, namely the public court of TikTok opinion.
2:26
The whole making of a spectacle public opinion has been a thing.
2:30
I mean, just think of the tabloids back in the day.
2:31
But now what we have is a whole slew of opinions readily
2:35
accessible right in the palm of our hands.
2:37
And no shade, usually these opinions are a little lackluster
2:40
in the nuance department. And then we have that combo with
2:42
the fact of just general LAX fact checking coming both from
2:45
the individual and large scale social media companies.
2:48
I mean sure when people want to doom scroll and or brain rot I
2:51
guess you won't pull out the academia in you and look up
2:54
every single thing you see. But when it comes to fact based
2:56
information I wouldn't take what we see online specifically on
2:59
TikTok and Instagram too seriously.
3:01
Because these platforms are seriously biased, skewed, and as
3:04
we've seen time and time again, rage bait is really the currency
3:07
to farm engagement. Which of course in turn creates
3:10
profitability regardless of how factual the information actually
3:13
is or as ridiculous as it is. Which is why the onus is on us
3:16
as the viewer to really have this due diligence or really
3:18
consider how seriously we take the things we may see online.
3:21
And of course, we can have this conversation without also
3:23
talking about how creators must take accountability before
3:25
posting. Like asking yourself, is what
3:27
you're posting actually insight? Or just adding more gasoline to
3:30
the untamable fire. And like, I get it, especially
3:33
if this is your livelihood. I understand why we creators
3:35
engagement bait. But also like, we can have
3:37
standards for what we create. We don't have to give in to the
3:40
gossip. Talk of it all, the Mr. Beast
3:42
vacation, if you will, of content creation.
3:44
At least I hope. Now for the companies out there,
3:46
I'm sure you thought you got away from this, but you most
3:48
definitely did not. Miley what's good?
3:51
Miley, what's good these companies are profiting heavily
3:55
off of our engagement and our attention.
3:57
So obviously they don't care as much as long as there's watch
3:59
time, views, likes, comments, etcetera.
4:02
Our attention stank online is all that matters.
4:04
So morality or public responsibility are clearly
4:07
nowhere insight. And we've previously seen this
4:09
when platforms like Twitter or Meta gave us and then promptly
4:12
removed fact checkers as well as flagging content as bias.
4:15
Yeah, pointing out their own carelessness with what content
4:18
gets propagated in by who? Like having Trump's account
4:21
always get flag for misinformation probably wasn't
4:23
the best look for them, but all that was definitely shooting
4:25
themselves in the foot. So like, notice how those things
4:27
just don't exist anymore, or at least not in the same way as
4:30
they were initially intended, right?
4:32
What I mean to say is that all of this is to their benefit that
4:34
people spread fear mongering, misinformation, enragement,
4:38
especially when our administration fits that
4:40
demographic of spreading that kind of content.
4:42
And now I know y'all hate to hear me coming around with my
4:45
inconvenience feel, so I'll keep it short for this one.
4:48
At the end of the day, the night if you will, it takes time and
4:50
effort to have a well informed opinion.
4:52
And it's convenient to believe that the creators that you come
4:55
across in your manicured tailored algorithm will
4:57
automatically give you that. Because it really would be
4:59
tiring to have to do your research on everything,
5:01
especially with as much as we got going on in the world.
5:03
But also at the same time, we do have to not have as punitive of
5:07
of an opinion on everything as we do, which we're going to
5:10
touch on shortly. Now, as I've alluded to, a large
5:12
part of this is due to the rise of anti intellectualism.
5:16
And I have a video talking about that extensively.
5:18
So if you want to know more about that, you should
5:19
definitely go check out that video.
5:20
But one third thing about the rise of anti intellectualism and
5:23
mis and disinformation has definitely created is the new
5:26
culture that we now see in comment sections, specifically
5:29
in TikTok comment sections. Someone commented being like,
5:32
oh, you like lesbians now because last year you were a
5:33
lesbian hater. I was like diva.
5:35
I have had to make a conscious effort to talk about lesbians
5:37
left. That's because I'm concerned
5:38
that it's getting weird for a good run there.
5:41
I was like getting parasocial. Who are you talking about?
5:44
That is not true. And someone else saw that
5:45
comment and replied and was like what?
5:47
No like not him. I think what bothers me, no
5:49
shade to the person if you're saying this.
5:50
What bothered me was that it wasn't a question.
5:53
It wasn't a when did this happen?
5:55
Can you tag me in a video? Can you prove this as someone
5:58
who's online? As a consumer, I'm like y'all
6:00
there has to be like a healthy and holistic approach to like
6:02
consuming social media content. The assumption that every single
6:06
thing you see in a comment section is true is such a
6:08
dangerous precedent to move forward with.
6:10
And while yes, I do think that there's some bad faith actors,
6:13
bots, whatever you want to call it, I also think that if we're
6:15
saying that the kids can't read, I'm not necessarily trusting you
6:18
to retell me the story because I don't know that you can spell.
6:21
So the assumption that because we read it in a comment section,
6:23
it's suddenly inducted into the Great American literary Lexicon
6:26
is just a little silly to me. Now it's no secret to any
6:30
creator or really just anyone with eyes that the comment
6:33
sections are notoriously one hell of a place, A place where
6:36
everyone has a strong or sometimes funny opinion.
6:39
And it doesn't really matter if you know what you're talking
6:41
about or not. Like, I don't know why, but like
6:42
if you read comments, you cannot take them at face value because
6:45
these people oftentimes are liars.
6:48
Like specifically these people online.
6:49
Like you are lying unprovoked for what?
6:51
Like obviously this isn't the case 100% of the time, but like,
6:54
why is it still a good portion of the comments?
6:56
Like really, what happened to if you don't have anything nice to
6:59
say, then don't say it at all. And I really do think the whole
7:01
slander and misinformation in comments section has evolved
7:04
with what I like to call the blue comment effects on TikTok.
7:07
If you've ever been on TikTok, you know, like if someone
7:09
comments a word that is highly searched, the comment turns blue
7:12
and becomes essentially searchable and oftentimes leads
7:14
you down a rabbit hole of a lot of other videos talking about
7:16
the similar topic. But what's happened, at least
7:18
culturally online is that when you now see a blue comment,
7:21
people are now assuming that whatever that is must be true or
7:24
at least an actual thing, even when there's nothing relevant
7:27
that actually comes up when you click on that blue comment.
7:29
Like literally 80% of the time I see this, the blue comment adds
7:31
nothing new or has any course running Tik Toks.
7:34
Or even scarier, it's one of those AI news videos, which,
7:37
Yeah, I'm not believing that if it's the only piece of media
7:39
referring to whatever topic. And while we're talking about
7:41
TikTok missing disinformation, have you ever tried clicking any
7:44
of the trending topics when you search something on TikTok?
7:46
Like it's about 5050, whether or not you're going to get
7:48
something actually relevant to the content attached to it.
7:50
Either that or the trending topic happened three months ago.
7:53
Like it's just generally really confusing because you got me to
7:56
click on it. But like, there's no supporting
7:57
evidence in there. So what are we doing?
8:00
And as a little side, no, I think we need to find this
8:02
generation's version of like Nancy Drew games, puzzles, if
8:05
you will, Detective Mystery Media, because I think kids used
8:08
to play that a lot more often and was honestly was a big
8:11
reason behind why people would ask questions, gather evidence
8:14
and put the pieces together in a logical way.
8:16
But like, what do the kids have now?
8:18
Like we've talked about this many times, like the kids are
8:20
not all right. They are not writing DBQS.
8:22
We need to bring back DBQS in education because the people
8:26
need to re learn how to critically think, how to take
8:28
pieces of evidence, put it together and come up with a
8:31
logical conclusion based off of that.
8:33
Like not just stringing together vibes to call in today.
8:35
OK, Like it feels like we really just don't know where to
8:37
reputable sources anymore. And that kind of leads me to
8:40
like a side point around like Wikipedia because historically,
8:42
at least in an academic setting, Wikipedia has always been seen
8:45
as like a not trustworthy source or at least not a reputable
8:48
source. And I saw a really interesting
8:49
TikTok about that and how like specifically Wikipedia is not
8:52
academically credible, but like in a general sense is like
8:55
pretty credible for like the information that's being
8:56
provided. And it's just wild to me that
8:58
Wikipedia has become a somewhat trusted source these days.
9:00
But like, I get it, like relative to TikTok, it is more
9:03
trustworthy, which is wild. But the next part of this
9:05
conversation that I wanted to talk about involves are on the
9:08
disinformation and misinformation that circulates
9:10
around controversial events. And I bring this up not
9:12
necessarily fear monger, but to say that we need to be
9:14
especially careful around controversy online nowadays,
9:18
both now and moving into the future.
9:20
Because y'all don't want to hear it.
9:21
But with the rise of things like AI and generative AI videos,
9:25
narratives can be easily spun and truth can be quickly warped
9:28
because we've already seen the masses be tricked into believing
9:31
AI videos as being the truth for incredibly harmless and
9:34
innocuous things. Which also then means that we
9:36
are susceptible to falling for things that are used for a
9:39
little bit more malicious practices.
9:41
I'm just going to say this plainly.
9:43
You got to be careful about who you agree with online.
9:47
Like what takes your agreeing with online because they can and
9:50
will lead you down some very tricky and malicious pipelines.
9:56
And next thing you know, like you're agreeing with things like
9:58
you never would have thought you would agree with or believe in.
10:02
Because with all the discourse that's going on right now with
10:04
the DoorDash lady or Lily who was fired from DoorDash and how
10:08
the narrative is like flipping on her, it's important to see
10:12
like who is pushing that narrative?
10:15
Like go, go to profiles, see who these people are and what
10:20
generally their beliefs and takes our own things.
10:23
Go on the comments and see the pipeline will look pretty all
10:29
right because this is very similar to Gamergate.
10:32
And like I said in that tic tac, we do need to be careful about
10:34
who we're listening to and give a little extra thought as to why
10:37
a creator or just someone posting a video would post that
10:40
video. Like what are the intentions,
10:41
the goals and benefits of posting something inflammatory,
10:44
controversial, or even just socially relevant?
10:46
Which leads me to the conversation around the cash
10:48
grab of influencer reporting or just regular poster reporting
10:51
slash discourse for engagement. Now obviously I'll come out
10:54
admit it. I am a content creator, so no,
10:59
this is not to bash on influencers.
11:00
But of course, there are creators whose content lends
11:03
itself better to commenting on controversial situations, as the
11:06
lovely lady Miss Kay mentions in her video.
11:08
In situations like this one is how you guys consume it, and I
11:12
really want you to pay attention to a lot of the creators making
11:16
videos with really strong decided opinions based on the
11:19
evidence, as if they're litigators or defense attorneys.
11:22
You know, the people making a ton of views off of this topic,
11:26
what kind of content they make because you want to know what a
11:29
lot of them are. They're true crime podcasters.
11:32
They're gossip bloggers. They're New age gossip bloggers.
11:36
Quite a few of them are TikTok mediums.
11:39
So I really want you guys to think about in a digital
11:43
landscape where people for whatever reason seem to value
11:46
above all else having a gut feeling about something being
11:49
off, who the you're actually listening to, who you are
11:53
letting influence your thoughts and why you enjoy so much
11:58
partaking in these. Really morbid, weird debates
12:03
where there really is no end goal and there is no real
12:06
discussion or discourse. And yeah, it's true.
12:08
Like, of course they're always going to be the gossip
12:10
influencers, the true crime influencers, etcetera, etcetera.
12:12
But when it comes to things that are really controversial, it's
12:15
important to ask what value is this really bringing besides
12:18
increased engagement? Like there are pages and
12:19
creators whose whole niche is based on commenting and
12:22
circulating the same regurgitated point around
12:24
chronically online discourse, which is fine, and I'm not one
12:27
to talk because I'd be talking about Gen.
12:28
Z left, right and sideways. But again, it's always important
12:30
to interrogate why they're posting the content in the way
12:32
that they are. Because sometimes, not every
12:34
time, but sometimes, their ways of thinking and agendas might be
12:38
a little more nefarious than you may think.
12:40
Meaning you need to pay attention to who you're
12:42
listening to and letting influence how you think.
12:45
Blindly believing something about someone because you read a
12:46
comment about them is nuts. Like guys, we have to wake it
12:50
up. This is a comment I got from
12:52
this woman. I'm gonna read what she said and
12:53
I'll show you on the screen, she says.
12:54
I like your takes, but I don't know about this one.
12:56
When I say, can you elaborate? She says, oh, wait, I actually
13:00
rewatched, read some of the comments, understood what you
13:02
were saying. I saw a video just before this
13:04
one. Wanted to get clarity because
13:05
your takes are usually good. Context is key.
13:08
I say, yeah, I think I know the video.
13:09
They removed a lot of context. I was very specific, not to
13:11
mention gender, because I wanted to make sure she knew.
13:14
She goes, yes, she did. I work so hard to make these
13:18
discussions as nuanced as I can, to try and make them generous
13:21
and careful and precise. I don't always get it right.
13:24
I don't. And I know that.
13:25
And I probably could have chosen better words for the Linguistics
13:27
1 I did the other day, quite ironically.
13:29
But if you're going to take my words, if you're going to RIP
13:31
them apart and add to them and feed them back into the
13:34
algorithm with no context, just know that not only are you
13:36
misrepresenting me, you're a liar.
13:39
You're a liar and A and a bad person.
13:41
You're a bad person and you're and you're ruining a space with
13:44
me and my audience that it's about having meaningful.
13:47
Conversation, and I know I get it, it's hard to want to
13:50
critically think in a time when everything is just siphoning
13:52
your energy. But unfortunately or fortunately
13:55
we have to if we want to remain well informed people.
13:57
So please, next time you see some drama on TikTok, sometimes
14:00
it is as simple as just watching the full video that's being
14:02
stitched before leaving a comment or just blindly
14:05
believing what's being said. Like even in this example,
14:06
notice how people in the comments of the video are people
14:09
apologizing because they believed a video stitch that
14:11
clipped what this guy was saying.
14:13
Like it's unfortunate, but sometimes people have malicious
14:15
or at least just uninformed intent.
14:17
Sometimes, like you have to have your wits about you.
14:19
You have to practice media literacy and don't blindly
14:21
believe everything that you hear and let that inform your own
14:23
opinion. And again, I don't say that in
14:25
like a conspiracy. You can't believe everything
14:26
that you hear away. But just like in a general, like
14:28
there is a rise of misinformation and you should be
14:31
doing the due diligence to make sure what you're saying, what
14:33
you're talking about is sound and actually based in reality.
14:35
And unfortunately when it comes to that previous video, it's not
14:38
just a one off situation. Especially on platforms like
14:40
Tick Tock, it is so common to have people click the fuck
14:43
people say and intentionally misconstrue the point that's
14:45
actually trying to be made. And again, as a viewer, the
14:47
probability of actually going to find the original video and
14:50
watching the whole thing if it's not immediately there, well,
14:53
let's be honest here. And that brings me to the whole,
14:56
oh, I knew they were ever since they did this, this being one
14:59
thing that never actually happened.
15:01
So I just had to unfollow. Still actively following and
15:03
engaging with all the content. Like this whole phenomenon just
15:06
really does me in because like, this is the final boss of
15:08
comment misinformation. Because beyond the whole cash
15:11
grab, the Adsense, the creator fund of it all, this is just the
15:14
grift. Like we're having times that
15:16
where influencers and content creators are intentionally
15:18
forgoing the responsibility as storytellers to ensure what
15:21
they're saying is substantiated and true.
15:23
Like we got to bring back citing your sources.
15:25
Y'all worried about media literacy?
15:26
You need to be worried about how you on the Internet with people
15:29
who have never done DBQS before. There are more Internet who
15:32
don't know what a DBQ is. A document based question like
15:36
these don't even know. They also don't know what a
15:39
primary source, secondary or tertiary sources and they don't
15:42
know how to choose in between. They don't know which one is
15:44
which. They also cannot tell you what a
15:47
credible sources or what makes a source credible.
15:49
They have never made an annotated bibliography a day in
15:51
their freaking life. Media literacy.
15:55
These aren't literate. Like.
15:57
I don't know what to say. Like the media?
16:01
These these these. Can't read an article and figure
16:04
out if the source is credible or not or where did they come from.
16:06
They are not literate like they're not literate.
16:10
Like aside from the cash grab from the attention and
16:12
engagement, as if money wasn't enough of a factor, what else do
16:15
these creators or just people who are posting online gain from
16:18
creating? Well, again, a lot of y'all
16:20
don't like me saying this, but a lot of this content, especially
16:22
the more grifty content, is skewed, whether intentionally or
16:25
not, to funnel people down different pipelines and usually,
16:28
oftentimes the alt right one. Like for example, let's start
16:30
with something fairly recent. We're talking about the DoorDash
16:32
situation and its similarities to things like Gamergate.
16:35
All right, quick rundown and again, do your own due diligence
16:37
here because I'm not getting into the weeds of it.
16:39
But the DoorDash situation that was recently in the zeitgeist
16:41
and of course sparked a lot of discourse basically started off
16:44
when a woman went to drop off a DoorDash order and the man who
16:47
ordered said DoorDash order had his door open.
16:50
And of course, the discourse around this is to what degree
16:53
the door was open where he was laying partially naked inside.
16:55
And the woman who recorded this made a whole video on tech talk
16:57
about this experience, saying that she was assayed.
16:59
And in response, DoorDash deactivated her account because
17:01
it violated their terms to share private customer information.
17:04
And as a result of this, Internet erupted into arguments
17:06
about the intentions of the man, the ethics of her recording him
17:09
in his home, and the semantics of her using the term SA over
17:13
things like SH or whatever. Like regardless of horrific
17:16
experience nonetheless. And at least for me with that
17:17
situation, it was wild seeing people be like, yeah, he
17:20
shouldn't have flashed or committed indecent exposure when
17:23
he himself ordered a person to drop off food at his door, but
17:26
she should have taken it to the Internet and that's her fault.
17:28
And they are both equally at fault.
17:29
I got to understand how those two things are these same thing.
17:32
Like again, I'm not getting into the weeds, but I think that like
17:34
he definitely should not have done that knowing that he
17:36
ordered food, but like her coming online and sharing her
17:38
experience deserve the same level of punitive judgment and
17:41
that makes it both their fault. I don't know.
17:43
Anyways, like we all know how convoluted the DoorDash
17:45
situation got in every opinion and hateful remark that has
17:48
already been made on it already. But for this and a lot of other
17:50
things, we do got to think a lot bigger than the program guys.
17:52
Like, for example, why did the public opinion immediately turn
17:55
on a woman over semantics? Like I've all seen people in the
17:57
comments be like, he has a criminal record and she has a
17:59
criminal record or she opened the door.
18:01
Like things that are just like not in the video or accessible
18:03
information. And it's not under just one
18:05
video. It's different people under
18:07
multiple videos. Like where did you all get this
18:09
information from? And the reason I bring this up
18:11
at all is because it reminds me a bit of the 2014 game Brigade
18:13
situation, which was an online harassment movement to display
18:16
women and diversity in the gamer world, mostly targeting actors,
18:19
journalists, game developers, women, and BIPOC who are in the
18:22
positions of creation in the field.
18:24
During this era there was insane online harassment for merely
18:27
existing in the space. These people got docs, death
18:29
threats and just severe online bullying where to this day if
18:32
you look up some of the victims, some subreddits still try to be
18:35
like Oh yeah. She's she's a bit.
18:38
So like that level of hate's deserved right?
18:40
Which I think is just people trying to justify their actions.
18:43
And it's hard to believe most of what was read because a lot of
18:46
it is skewed. Especially when the majority of
18:48
people that were impacted by Gamergate did nothing except
18:50
want to be in gaming spaces. And obviously in this case, this
18:53
is in cell behavior and their reaction to someone other than
18:56
themselves being in this space created or at least contributed
18:59
to the alt right pipeline crying the forced diversity of the new
19:03
trilogy. Almost 40 years, we've taken one
19:06
kind of person and made them the center of the world and catered
19:10
to their every single whim and not really represented other
19:14
people. So as we're having, you know,
19:17
societal change where we're showing other kinds of people as
19:20
the heroes. There are a lot of people that
19:22
generally they feel like something has been stolen from
19:25
them. They directed their anger at
19:27
Kelly Marie Tran, the first woman of color to hold a major
19:31
on screen role in the Star Wars franchise.
19:33
A lot of fans who kind of had. Racist and sexist inclinations.
19:38
We're able to band. Together and drive her off.
19:40
Social media platforms. And these two moments have a
19:42
very similar vibe to them because it's the wave of people
19:44
spreading hateful rhetoric about women and essentially rage
19:47
baiting the public into thinking that these women committed a
19:49
horrific catastrophe. The theme here being that the
19:52
punishment is not fitting the crime, even in some of the cases
19:54
where a crime was not committed at all.
19:56
These situations really show that people do not care to find
19:58
out real information. They just want to reason.
20:00
They hate women and people of color, so they're going to do
20:02
it. And that sort of leads me down
20:03
the pipeline around the trickiness of TikTok and other
20:06
social media platforms and accidentally agreeing.
20:08
Someone who wants your existence eradicated.
20:10
Now what I mean by this, and I'll go back to the DoorDash
20:12
situation. For this, is there a mass
20:14
amounts of people reposting and agreeing with takes on the
20:16
situation for people who had a long history of spouting either
20:19
incorrect or just generally offensive takes or just
20:21
generally believing in things completely in contrast with most
20:24
viewers values. Like again, you also have to do
20:26
your due diligence when you agree with a take, because sorry
20:28
to tell you that take could just be a dog whistle to get you to
20:31
agree with more progressively sinister takes.
20:34
And for this, I'm not saying that you can never agree with
20:36
people with different values or views than you, but if the
20:38
person you're now suddenly agreeing with has a long history
20:40
of making problematic or bad takes, then it's the answer
20:44
reason that more than likely their take on the situation that
20:46
you agree with also has a problematic skew.
20:48
Like they could technically be in alignment with your opinion,
20:51
but for the wrong reasons. Like for example, going back to
20:53
that viral Mehdi Hassan Jubilee video that we covered a while
20:56
ago where there were literal white nationalists and outright
20:58
people agreeing that Palestine should be free.
21:00
But like not because they actually cared about the labs of
21:02
Palestinian people. They just don't believe that
21:03
Jewish people should exist at all because they're so into
21:06
white superiority, white Christianity.
21:07
So essentially just straight over antis.
21:09
Dramatic. So yeah, technically you're both
21:11
fighting for the same thing, wanting a free Palestine.
21:13
But like the reasonings behind why you want a free Palestine
21:16
are completely different and lead to completely different
21:19
outcome, which again, I can't believe I have to know.
21:20
But also like, supporting a free Palestine is not inherently
21:23
anti-Semitic. I just want to put that out
21:24
there. But again, this is all to say,
21:26
be careful who you're listening to and who you're agreeing with.
21:28
And it's annoying and inconvenient, but important that
21:30
you do that due diligence. And I know at this point you may
21:32
be asking Rumi, what don't we have to look out for online?
21:35
And truly, I wish I could tell you that That's it.
21:37
Just watch out for the grifters, watch out for the misleading
21:39
comments, the misleading stitches.
21:41
But I figure there is another thing and that has to do with
21:43
the sheer amount of inauthentic content online.
21:46
Meaning the bots in comment sections spouting the same
21:49
rhetoric over and over to try and sway public opinion.
21:52
And this is actually a more modern and malicious tool called
21:55
astroturfing. Like I don't know if you saw the
21:57
new Superman movie where they had like the bunch of monkeys
21:59
that were just typing hate comments over and over again.
22:02
So many people think that the public sentiment was that
22:04
everyone hates Superman, but like that's actually real.
22:06
That actually happens. Maybe not like the monkeys part
22:08
but the the whole point of astroturfic is to make discourse
22:10
around anything seem like the majority opinion is swaying a
22:12
certain way or not which is a form of disinformation.
22:15
Like most of the comments if you go to different comment sections
22:17
about similar discourse will read the exact same and the
22:20
accounts don't seem to be actual people which really makes you
22:24
wonder. Like if the Internet right now
22:25
is filled with fake influencers, fake video receipts, fake
22:28
comments and fake engagement. Like how much of the Internet is
22:31
actually real anymore? The Dead Internet theory is a
22:33
speculative theory that claims that most of what we see on the
22:37
Internet social media posts are comments, isn't coming from real
22:40
humans, but is actually coming from bots and AI systems.
22:43
Originally when the theory was invented in like 2021, it was
22:46
referring to bots in systems of engagement on the Internet.
22:50
So think like likes, comments, reposts, kind of like a ghost
22:54
audience faking virality. But now with AI, the scope of
22:58
the Dead Internet theory has now expanded to include not just the
23:01
engagement being fake, but the actual content itself.
23:04
Last week we saw the release of Soro 2, the most realistic
23:06
lifelike AI video generator with deep fakes literally built in as
23:11
a feature. Wild choice.
23:14
And so of course, everyone's wondering how long until my
23:17
entire feed and the entire Internet is just filled with
23:21
this. And when it comes to the dead
23:22
Internet theory, this theory has been around for a while now.
23:24
Like it's the idea that all engagement likes, comment,
23:27
shares, what have you maybe bot created or bot farm.
23:29
Like I feel like there was a time where people would like
23:31
ironically buy bots for like their friends to like boost
23:33
their followers on Instagram just to piss people off.
23:35
But in more recent times, especially considering where AI
23:38
this is extended to also include bot AI created content.
23:42
So it posits that soon all content or at least the majority
23:45
of content online will soon be AI manufactured and will
23:48
eventually outweigh human made content.
23:51
Essentially making social media kind of pointless if you think
23:53
about it. Which is like a giant sidebar.
23:55
I hope if that does happen, this leads to the resurgence of
23:58
physical media. Because if it gets to the point
24:00
where like we can no longer trust social media with the
24:02
giant AI content fatigue of it all, it would be nice to hold
24:05
our trust and just our general entertainment in the real
24:08
physical 3D space. Like you know, things are
24:10
getting better where there are now AI bot commentators.
24:13
On a major level, people are making videos and content and
24:16
the AI is just kind of downloading that video,
24:19
transcribing it and then generating a fake person and
24:21
then another fake video in the background.
24:23
By the way, if you do notice, those last two clips had two
24:25
different videos in the background and then even the
24:28
train one was different from the original one that I had showed
24:30
you. So they're also now generating a
24:32
fake video of that in the background and you really can't
24:34
tell the difference. Not only are they like, you
24:36
know, stealing content, farming, whatever, and you know, now
24:38
this, this account has 200,000 likes from the ceiling content.
24:41
Sure, whatever. Think about the fucking
24:43
implications of what you just saw.
24:45
You can go search up those creators and see people
24:47
stitching them as if they're real creators.
24:49
Now the content is real for now, but even the content, there's AI
24:53
generated. How long until they bring up
24:55
some bullpit that never. Happened like keep your arm out
24:58
about people stitching a video only shaking their head to it
25:00
and like pointing to it. Like just get ready for the wave
25:02
of people's content and thoughts being stolen by of odds.
25:06
According to this Futurism article, a little over 50% of
25:08
articles online are AI created, which they are framing as a
25:11
positive because that percentage is plateauing and hopefully it
25:14
stays like that. But like that's still half of
25:17
the Internet articles just being AI slot.
25:19
Like that's just not. And like considering how wrong
25:23
Google Gemini be getting people's searches, I just don't
25:26
even want to think about the levels of misinformation that's
25:28
being spread right now for real. And again, I just want to echo
25:30
what I said earlier in this video over being careful around
25:32
this next stage of the Internet because as we see the rise of
25:34
AI, we are going to see the fall of actual proof.
25:38
We're going and have a harder time deciphering what is real
25:39
and what is not. Like if Sam Altman, the CEO of
25:41
Open AI, is allowing people to use his likeness in all types of
25:45
AI, like Sora videos, how will we be able to tell what he or
25:48
any of us have or have not actually done?
25:50
OK, OK, enough of the doom and gloom.
25:52
It's time we actually talk about some solutions, some positive
25:54
things like what we can do now in a time of mass missing
25:57
disinformation. There are some things that we
25:59
can do individually to help combat this.
26:01
And I decided to make a little listicle.
26:03
You know, we all love a little top five, don't we?
26:06
So here are five ways to use discernment and critical
26:08
thinking. And of course, while the system
26:09
is quite obviously flawed and there are powers greater than
26:12
individuals behind these forces, we can use our attention and our
26:15
due diligence as a consumer or as a creator of content to avoid
26:18
spreading misinformation, fear mongering, and just general
26:21
hateful chronically online behavior.
26:23
OK, with that said, you ready for the top five?
26:24
OK, starting off #1 do not take content at face value,
26:28
especially if it's shaping your opinion on something.
26:31
Like if you don't care about the topic, that's fine, whatever.
26:33
But like, if you repost or share a video, watch for one, the full
26:37
video and two, the full of whatever is being stitched or
26:39
talked about. Get the contacts and don't just
26:42
listen to one side #2 We have to remember that we're neither a
26:45
judge or the jury, but we sure all want to act like we're going
26:49
to be the executioner. Like there is some discourse
26:51
that we just don't need to participate in Peru.
26:53
And it's important to remember that for some things, we can
26:55
just log off #3 Now I know you aren't going to like #3 but #3
27:00
check your sources. Even if it's something as simple
27:02
as clicking the blue comment on Tiktok to see if people are
27:05
actually talking about something or if there is some real
27:08
validity to whatever the blue comment is highlighting.
27:10
And if something you're flooding in that just really isn't
27:12
sitting right with your spirit, Google it.
27:15
Like, at least just to see if this is something real.
27:17
But like, in such a real and raw way, let's not forget the
27:20
ancient texts of actually checking reliable sources.
27:22
Like, we love a primary source. A secondary source is fine.
27:25
Tertiary. Get on that, Google girl.
27:28
And for those of us that they need a refresher for what those
27:30
things actually are, I know I definitely did before making
27:32
this video, here's good old protu to give us some refresher
27:35
tips. Bringing it back to old high
27:36
school #4 remember to consider if the content you're viewing is
27:40
actually real, an ad manufactured, or if it's just
27:44
generally worth your attention. And finally, but not most
27:46
importantly #5 something to leave you off with.
27:48
If you catch yourself agreeing to something where other people
27:50
or other bots taking your side or being hella hateful, racist,
27:54
misogynist, homophobic, or any of the other isms or is,
27:57
consider that you may not be on right side of history.
27:59
And if that's on your team, find some additional context to
28:01
consider if people are saying things that they can't back up
28:03
because we're no longer in the times that we old and you don't
28:06
need to be a part of a witch hunt.