Die Zweit- bzw. Mehr-Verwendung ist genau die Lösung des ganzen Problems. Auf einer Seite will man die Sichtbarkeit auf der Mainstream-Site nicht verlieren, auf der anderen Seite nutzt niemand die „Alternativ“-Medien, weil da „nichts los ist“. Wenn auf mehreren gepostet wird, sind beide Probleme gelöst, Abhängigkeit sinkt, Mobilität steigt.

Seems to be a matter of aligning incentives and not a lack of skill, creativity or financial capacity.

Zeit das zu ändern!

Ich habe übrigens nicht downvoted.

Ich habe nie verstanden warum man sich hier so schwer tut, eigene vernünftige Software Plattformen zu entwickeln. Das ist keine Raketenwissenschaft…? Und zb könnte die EU existierende Projekte unterstützen, wie Ubuntu Touch, um eine Alternative zu Android und iOS zu haben.

That’s what „flood the zone“ ultimately means. It’s effectively no different than the other solution usually proposed, which is banning social media. Except than bans can be avoided, people will seek to challenge them, etc.

There are a few competitive devices that even come with Ubuntu Touch preinstalled.

It depends on how you present it. It doesn’t have to be „boring good“. And even then you can still work e.g. on the comment area (reactive, not original content).

It doesn’t have 2 of the biggest corporations in the world funding it. Maybe something can be done at policy level to get it up to speed. With Linux at foundation we already have like 70%.

What if you don’t use it as only measure? You launch 2 things in parallel: 1. neutralization: flood the zone, exhaust everyone, 2. provide a solution: sane channels that make clear how thinking, fact checking and honest dialogue are the only way out.

I think that flooding the zone with alternative slop would have a neutralizing effect. At the end everyone gets exhausted, which is a better outcome than allowing right wing slop to spread completely unhindered. Of course people will then start protecting their spaces, moderating the slop they don’t like, but you‘d at least have neutralized the public spaces, which would be a win.

That would be for people that are trusting the original AI.

It could, among other things, link to sources.

It doesn’t even have to be accurate. It suffices if it makes clear that there are different perspectives, or that you simply can’t trust anything. People exhausted by contradicting slop is a better outcome than allowing only one type of slop to take over.

Oh no what are we going to do… a far right AI-avatar! People know that you can create 10000+ left, center, etc. AI-avatars, as well as fact checking AI-avatars debunking what this one says, right?