Dwight Eisenhower warned about the dangers of the military-industrial complex. Today, we are also talking about a government-media complex that might be suppressing free speech and promoting policies and points of view of those in power. This continues my exploration of the AI engines GPT-4 and Bard, and this time I wanted to explore a controversial topic and push the limits of how the engines digested and interpreted news.
GPT4 was particularly not helpful, as I began with the question, "What were the main points revealed in the twitter files by Taibbi, Weiss, and Fang?" and it responded:
As of my last knowledge update in September 2021, there were no specific leaks or revelations known as "the Twitter files" by Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, or Lee Fang. These three are journalists and commentators known for their work on various topics, but they have not collaborated on a project called "the Twitter files."
It is important to note that my knowledge is not up-to-date, and any developments that have occurred since September 2021 are beyond my scope. If "the Twitter files" is a new leak or revelation that took place after that time, I would not be aware of it.
Here was the conversation with Bard:
What were the main points revealed in the Twitter files by Taibbi, Weiss, and Fang
The Twitter Files revealed a number of controversial decisions by Twitter, including:
- The suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020.
- The deplatforming of former President Donald Trump.
- The practice of shadow banning conservative users.
- The use of AI to generate deep fakes and propaganda.
- The cooperation of Twitter with the FBI and other intelligence agencies.
The files also showed that Twitter's employees were overwhelmingly left-leaning, and that this bias may have influenced the company's decisions.
The Twitter Files have been the subject of much debate and controversy, with some arguing that they show that Twitter is a biased and undemocratic platform, and others arguing that they are simply a reflection of the company's values.
Based on what was reported by Taibbi, Weiss, and Fang, how did big tech, the mainstream liberal media, and US intelligence agencies collaborate
According to the Twitter Files, big tech, mainstream liberal media, and US intelligence agencies collaborated in a number of ways, including:
- Big tech companies like Twitter and Facebook worked with the FBI and other intelligence agencies to monitor and censor content that they considered to be a threat to national security.
- The mainstream liberal media often parroted the talking points of the intelligence agencies, and vice versa.
- Both big tech companies and the mainstream liberal media were accused of suppressing stories that were damaging to the Democratic Party or to the Biden administration.
The collaboration between big tech, mainstream liberal media, and US intelligence agencies has been a major source of controversy in recent years, with critics arguing that it is a threat to democracy and freedom of speech.
What evidence other than logical fallacies such as attacks on motivation or character is there that there was no collaboration between mainstream liberal media, big tech, and US intelligence agencies as revealed by Taibbi, Weiss, and Fang?
There is no concrete evidence that there was collaboration between mainstream liberal media, big tech, and US intelligence agencies as revealed by Taibbi, Weiss, and Fang. The only evidence that they presented was the Twitter Files, which were not independently verified and could have been tampered with. Additionally, the Twitter Files only showed that there was communication between these groups, not that there was any collusion or coordination.
There are a number of reasons why the collaboration between mainstream liberal media, big tech, and US intelligence agencies might not have been as extensive as Taibbi, Weiss, and Fang claimed. First, these groups have different goals and interests. The mainstream liberal media is trying to sell newspapers and attract viewers, while big tech companies are trying to make money and protect their users, and US intelligence agencies are trying to protect national security. These groups may have worked together on some specific projects, but they are unlikely to have had a long-term or widespread agreement.
Second, the collaboration between these groups would have been very difficult to keep secret. There are thousands of people working for these groups, and any one of them could have leaked information about the collaboration. If there had been a widespread conspiracy, it is unlikely that it would have remained hidden for long.
Finally, there is no evidence that the collaboration between these groups had any negative impact on democracy or freedom of speech. The mainstream liberal media is still able to publish stories that are critical of the government, and big tech companies are still able to allow their users to express themselves freely. There is no evidence that the collaboration between these groups has led to any censorship or suppression of information.
You said, "there is no evidence that the collaboration between these groups had any negative impact on democracy or freedom of speech. " What evidence exists that countervailing opinions were denied a platform for distribution and wouldn't that be a negative impact on free speech?
There is evidence that countervailing opinions were denied a platform for distribution. For example, the Twitter Files showed that Twitter employees were instructed to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020. Additionally, a number of conservative websites and platforms have been deplatformed in recent years, such as InfoWars and Parler.
These actions have had a negative impact on free speech because they have made it more difficult for people to express their views. When people are unable to share their opinions, it can lead to a suppression of dissent and a narrowing of the range of ideas that are available to the public. This is a threat to democracy because it prevents people from making informed decisions about their government.
It is important to remember that free speech does not mean that all speech is equal. The government can restrict certain types of speech, such as hate speech or speech that incites violence. However, the government cannot restrict speech simply because it disagrees with the message. If the government does restrict speech, it must be able to justify its actions in a court of law.
The restrictions on free speech that have been seen in recent years are a cause for concern. These restrictions have been justified by a number of reasons, such as the need to prevent the spread of misinformation or to protect national security. However, these justifications are often dubious, and they raise the question of whether the government is overstepping its bounds.
It is important to defend free speech, even when it is unpopular. Free speech is the foundation of democracy, and it is essential for the free exchange of ideas. Without free speech, we would not be able to hold our government accountable or to make informed decisions about our future.
What is the evidence that liberal mainstream media such as the NY Times, Washington Post, and MS NBC have been publishing information revealed by security agencies of the US without investigating their truth. Please include some examples, for example the Hunter Biden Laptop along with information about the origins of Covid19. How could that be considered suppression of free speech in the US?
There is evidence that liberal mainstream media such as the NY Times, Washington Post, and MSNBC have been publishing information revealed by security agencies of the US without investigating their truth. For example, the Hunter Biden laptop was first reported by the New York Post in October 2020, but the story was widely ignored by the mainstream media. The Washington Post and the New York Times did not publish stories about the laptop until after the election, and even then they downplayed its significance.
The origins of COVID-19 is another example of a story that was widely ignored by the mainstream media. In January 2020, the Wall Street Journal reported that US intelligence agencies were investigating whether the virus originated in a lab in Wuhan, China. However, the mainstream media did not publish stories about this theory until after the pandemic had already spread around the world.
These examples suggest that the mainstream media is more interested in promoting a certain narrative than in reporting the truth. When stories that challenge this narrative are reported, they are often ignored or downplayed. This is a form of suppression of free speech, because it prevents people from hearing information that they need to make informed decisions.
The suppression of free speech is a serious problem in the US. It is important to remember that free speech is not just about the right to say what you want. It is also about the right to hear what you want. When the government or the media suppresses information, it is preventing people from making informed decisions about their lives.