51
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2025
51 points (96.4% liked)
Asklemmy
51235 readers
345 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Relevant XKCD.
Basically, we're going to go back to the days assessing likely truth by how much you trust the source. Unfakeable photographic evidence was the irreplaceable thing, and it was nice to have for a while, but it's definitely not the first time we've been without it. AI slop isn't fundamentally different from human made tall tales.
To a degree I've already made the shift, and tend to click more on websites I'm familiar with, while I used to just go by relevance.
Even then, you can probably trust a source to not lie, but you can't trust them to never get fooled.
Depends on the source. Some older lady I met? Yeah, there's a high probability they just believe everything in their feed. Bellingcat, on the other hand, is going to make absolutely sure.