> The author says fake content is going to be too hard to identify so there is only one effective way to stop it
I strongly disagree with the author that there's only one effective way to stop misinformation.
Remember, the real problem isn't the existence or proliferation of misinformation, which is both incredibly subjective and impossible to prevent without a central source of truth which is fraught with ethical problems.
The problem is that many people uncritically believe anything they read, see, or hear.
You could solve the actual problem of misinformation tomorrow if there was a concerted societal messaging that said something like the following: "Everything you read online, from any source, may be inaccurate. People with money and power try and manipulate you for even more money and power. Verify everything with multiple sources, consider all possibilities and peoples' motives, and use your brain."
This will never happen because powerful people want to have their cake and eat it too: politicians want you to believe all of the words that come out of their mouth, but not trust the naughty "conspiracy theories" about them being insider traders, for instance.
I think everybody already knows that you shouldn't trust anonymous, un-sourced information you read online, and I doubt simply reminding them of this would do much good. It's just really hard to constantly be vigilant. Even on this site, I've caught myself casually reading an article or comment and taking the claims at face-value, and then reading a response that actually does cite reputable sources showing it was complete bull-shit.
> everybody already knows that you shouldn't trust anonymous, un-sourced information you read online
* Your comment makes no sense in light of the establishment freaking out about "misinformation" online. If everybody already knew what not to trust, then why are they freaking out about misinformation spreading wildly on social media?
* You yourself claim that you find yourself believing unsourced claims at face value, so there's a contradiction there too. I thought you already knew what you shouldn't trust.
* There is no definitive source of truth that exists. Even if something is sourced by a "verified source", it can be false information, if even just by lying by omission. CNN, Fox News, Snopes, all politicians, and Facebook's fact checkers get things wrong or tell falsehoods. Trusting an "official source" is not a prescription to avoiding misinformation.
I strongly disagree with the author that there's only one effective way to stop misinformation.
Remember, the real problem isn't the existence or proliferation of misinformation, which is both incredibly subjective and impossible to prevent without a central source of truth which is fraught with ethical problems.
The problem is that many people uncritically believe anything they read, see, or hear.
You could solve the actual problem of misinformation tomorrow if there was a concerted societal messaging that said something like the following: "Everything you read online, from any source, may be inaccurate. People with money and power try and manipulate you for even more money and power. Verify everything with multiple sources, consider all possibilities and peoples' motives, and use your brain."
This will never happen because powerful people want to have their cake and eat it too: politicians want you to believe all of the words that come out of their mouth, but not trust the naughty "conspiracy theories" about them being insider traders, for instance.