It’s bizarre to think how much this ‘AI revolution’ holds similarities to the introduction of the internet: the market bubble, the over-saturation of adoption by companies without any actual strategy for system integration, the whole general over-hype. I remember in high school and uni discussing with my parents how I couldn’t fathom studying computer science without the internet; I’m sure the kids in the future will be saying the same about AI.
my sexuality doesn’t define me. my hatred for capitalism does.
deleted by creator
Agree; this could all happen, yes. What my original comment was trying to convey—and your reply adds to—is that the variables and complexities required to be maintained by X/Musk to ensure that the lie they are defending are hugely disproportionate to other operations that can field similar results. It is also an incredibly high-risk operation for X/Musk, in that a collusion operation of this magnitude risks global repercussions. The required amount of time, effort and resources against politicians or reporters wouldn’t be worth X/Musk’s investment when simpler techniques can be executed at lower risk and require far less resources.
It really just comes down to a cost/benefit/risk analysis. Do we start fake-posting official accounts and risk massive legal and public fallout? Or do we pay Putin $X million to spin up a bunch of bots and push a particular message that could sway public opinion in a similar direction, with very little traceable evidence and virtually no risk to X/Musk?
What I’m trying to convey, in the face of your obnoxious sarcasm, is that while the administration would of course interfere in what should be an objective investigation, politicians and reporters have a wealth of powerful advocates in their support networks. The administration can only control the message/investigation of the SS. They cannot control the message or investigations of the victim’s support network, however hard they may try.
Let’s run a little scenario: a reporter’s post is doctored or posted completely outside of their control. Their boss calls them in:
“Did you post this?”
“No”
“Yeap, treason!”
Please don’t confuse enthusiasm with critical thinking.
Lock the account from being able to make edits
So, the victim watches their post publish. Acknowledges it’s been doctored. Attempts to edit. Receives some error. And shrugs it off and puts their phone away…? They’ll turn to the closest person with broader knowledge of IT and then it snowballs from there. And that timeline post-publishing would be sufficient evidence for reasonable doubt.
How would the server admin know the real-time location of the victim to spoof the GPS coordinates? How would the admin know if the victim was with others who could verify they weren’t engaged in their device? How could the admin counter legitimate logs from other applications or services the victim might be using at the timestamp of the post?
There are far too many variables to be able to execute this successfully by professionals, let alone a bunch of IT staff.
…the obvious flaw that said investigations would clearly conclude the posts were doctored?
The metadata of posts include too many data points (IP address, GPS coords, etc.) needing precise alteration in line with the exact movements of a victim that it would just be too complex to achieve a desirable outcome for Musk. Even if the SS’s investigations were subjective in their approach and/or conclusion, independent investigations would provide a trove of reasonable doubt, even if denied access to the data (which, in itself, would be a point of reasonable doubt).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_Benefits_Scheme
The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) is a program of the Australian Government that subsidises prescription medication for Australian citizens and permanent residents, as well as international visitors covered by a reciprocal health care agreement.
…
The cost of a medication is negotiated between the government, through the Department of Health, and the supplier of the drug. The agreed price becomes the basis of the dispensed price of the medication which is negotiated between the government and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia under the current Community Pharmacy Agreement. The dispensed price includes the wholesaler’s markup, pharmacist’s markup, and a dispensing fee. Pharmacies purchase PBS-listed drugs from the wholesaler or supplier, and claim the difference between the dispensed price and the patient co-payment contribution from Medicare Australia.
tbf, they said they same thing about computers and the internet.