> Solving Disinformation/Information Pollution for the BBC
This isn't really a complex problem; it is an intractable problem. It is very easy to solve disinformation - have a good editor who notes the quality of the evidence clearly.
The problem comes in to play because once there is a reliable brand, partisans/corporate suits/do-gooders/hacks see value and set around corrupting the brand to extract value from it. It doesn't matter how good the solution is, eventually someone will decide that reality is pulling in a direction they don't like and bam! disinformation and censorship.
The BBC is not in the business of neutrality. They are a reputable front for British propaganda. Seems likely that one of the reasons the quality is so high is someone is purposefully keeping the channel clear so they can nudge the debate more effectively. Especially after we discovered what the US agencies were doing in social media with the so-called Twitter Files - professional government disinformationists embedding in media outlets is obviously the done thing.
It turned out that was Taibbi's own invention, changing an acronym so that it pointed to a government agency when it really didn't:
> Taibbi claimed “the EIP was partnered with the government Cybersecurity Infrastructure Agency—CISA—to censor Twitter,” but the reporter mixed up the government agency with the nonprofit firm Center for Internet Security.
You havn't managed to provide an argument our counterexample, so it is obviously at least something of a challenge to find unsolvable disinformation. Most of the easy examples are intensely political and it is obvious that motivated reasoning or clashing values is the root cause and no issues to do with facts.
> make your credibility go "poof."
I suspect you are using credibility to assess claims rather than arguments. If that is so, you're never going to escape disinformation because credible people routinely discover they can sell their credibility and do so. And credibility has never been a measure of truth, lots of credible people are also key spreaders of disinformation (like the BBC, for example). That would make the problem intractable. It is pretty normal for people to optimise for credibility, which means the disinformation is generally pushed specifically by people who are legitimately credible.
This isn't really a complex problem; it is an intractable problem. It is very easy to solve disinformation - have a good editor who notes the quality of the evidence clearly.
The problem comes in to play because once there is a reliable brand, partisans/corporate suits/do-gooders/hacks see value and set around corrupting the brand to extract value from it. It doesn't matter how good the solution is, eventually someone will decide that reality is pulling in a direction they don't like and bam! disinformation and censorship.
The BBC is not in the business of neutrality. They are a reputable front for British propaganda. Seems likely that one of the reasons the quality is so high is someone is purposefully keeping the channel clear so they can nudge the debate more effectively. Especially after we discovered what the US agencies were doing in social media with the so-called Twitter Files - professional government disinformationists embedding in media outlets is obviously the done thing.