Asking AI's view on the statement: "To make money on the internet, information does not need to be real or useful, it only needs to be attractive and therefore be accessed a lot"

Question 1 of 2 for AI services: Provide me with your elaborate view on the following statement: "To make money on the internet, information does not need to be real or useful, it only needs to be attractive and therefore be accessed a lot"

ChatGPT-4’s answer:The statement "To make money on the internet, information does not need to be real or useful, it only needs to be attractive and therefore be accessed a lot" captures a complex and somewhat controversial aspect of the digital economy. It touches on issues related to the quality and integrity of online content, the motivations behind content creation, and the mechanisms that drive online revenue. Below are some key points to consider:

The Attention Economy

1. Clicks and Views: In the age of the internet, attention is a valuable commodity. Websites, social media platforms, and content creators often rely on metrics like clicks, views, and engagement to generate revenue. The more a piece of content is accessed, the more advertising revenue it can potentially generate.

2. Viral Content: Content that is sensational, controversial, or emotionally charged often gains more traction than nuanced, factual information. This is because such content is designed to evoke strong reactions, making it more likely to be shared and discussed.

Ethical Considerations

1. Misinformation: The focus on attractiveness over accuracy can lead to the spread of misinformation. Fake news, conspiracy theories, and misleading content can gain traction simply because they are "clickable," not because they are true or useful.

2. Quality vs. Quantity: The emphasis on clicks over content quality can degrade the overall information landscape. It may discourage creators from producing well-researched, thoughtful content in favor of quick, sensational pieces.

Business Models

1. Ad-Based Revenue: Many online platforms rely on advertising as a primary revenue source. This model inherently favors content that can attract more eyeballs, regardless of its factual accuracy or utility.

2. Subscription Models: Some platforms have moved towards subscription-based models, where the focus is more on providing value to the user. In such cases, the quality and utility of the information become more important.

Social Impact

1. Public Discourse: The quality of information available online can significantly impact public discourse and opinion. Misinformation and sensationalism can polarize communities and create social divides.

2. Consumer Behavior: Misleading or attractive content can also influence consumer choices, sometimes to the detriment of the consumer.

Regulatory Aspects

1. Accountability: There is an ongoing debate about who should be responsible for regulating online content—whether it's the platforms themselves, third-party agencies, or governmental bodies.

2. Transparency: Calls for more transparent algorithms and content moderation practices are growing, aimed at making it clearer why certain types of content are promoted over others.

In summary, while it's true that attractive content can generate revenue online, the implications of prioritizing attractiveness over accuracy and utility are far-reaching and complex. The statement captures a reality of the digital age but also highlights ethical and societal challenges that are yet to be fully addressed.

Google Bard’s answer:The statement "To make money on the internet, information does not need to be real or useful, it only needs to be attractive and therefore be accessed a lot" is unfortunately true. There are many ways to make money online by selling or promoting attractive information, even if it is not real or useful. Here are a few examples:

• Clickbait: Clickbait is content that is designed to be sensational or eye-catching in order to attract clicks. It often uses exaggerated or misleading headlines, images, and descriptions. While clickbait may be effective at generating traffic, it is often of poor quality and does not provide any real value to the reader. However, website owners and publishers can make money from clickbait by selling advertising space on their websites.

• Fake news: Fake news is false or misleading information that is presented as news. It is often spread online through social media and other websites. Fake news can be used to manipulate public opinion, promote certain products or agendas, or simply to generate traffic and clicks. Website owners and publishers can make money from fake news by selling advertising space on their websites or by participating in affiliate marketing programs.

• Conspiracy theories: Conspiracy theories are unsubstantiated claims that often involve secret plots or hidden agendas. They are often spread online through social media and other websites. Conspiracy theories can be used to manipulate public opinion, promote certain products or agendas, or simply to generate traffic and clicks. Website owners and publishers can make money from conspiracy theories by selling advertising space on their websites or by selling products or services related to the conspiracy theory.

In addition to these specific examples, there are many other ways to make money online by selling or promoting attractive information, even if it is not real or useful. For example, some people make money by creating and selling ebooks, online courses, and other information products that are of poor quality or that do not provide any real value to the buyer. Others make money by promoting affiliate products or services that they have never used or that they do not believe in.

It is important to note that not everyone who makes money online is doing so by selling or promoting attractive information that is not real or useful. There are many legitimate ways to make money online, such as by creating and selling high-quality products or services, providing valuable content, or building a successful online business. However, it is also important to be aware of the many ways that people can make money online by selling or promoting attractive information, even if it is not real or useful.

My personal view:

I believe that it is unethical to make money by selling or promoting attractive information that is not real or useful. This type of information can mislead and deceive people, and it can also contribute to the spread of misinformation and disinformation. I encourage people to support legitimate online businesses and to be critical of the information they consume.

Bing Chat’s answer:Hello, this is Bing. I’m happy to chat with you and share my views on various topics. 😊

The statement you provided is a controversial one that reflects some of the challenges and issues of the internet as a source of information. I will try to give you my perspective on it, but please keep in mind that this is not a definitive answer, and you may have different opinions or experiences.

First of all, I think it is important to define what we mean by making money on the internet. There are many ways to generate income online, such as selling products or services, advertising, crowdfunding, donations, subscriptions, etc. Some of these methods may require more quality and credibility of the information than others. For example, if you are selling a product or service, you need to provide accurate and useful information about it, otherwise you may lose customers or face legal consequences. On the other hand, if you are relying on advertising revenue, you may be more tempted to create sensational or misleading content that attracts more clicks and views, regardless of its truthfulness or usefulness.

Secondly, I think it is also important to consider the quality of the information that is available on the internet. As you may know, the internet is not regulated for quality or accuracy; therefore, it is up to the individual user to evaluate the source or information1. There are many factors that can affect the quality of online information, such as currency, relevancy, authority, accuracy, and purpose12. Some online sources may have higher standards and criteria for publishing information than others. For example, academic journals and government websites may have more rigorous peer-review and editing processes than blogs or social media platforms. However, this does not mean that all online sources are equally reliable or credible. There may be biases, errors, omissions, or conflicts of interest in any type of online information. Therefore, it is always advisable to check multiple sources and verify the information with your own knowledge or independent sources.

Thirdly, I think it is also important to acknowledge the role of the audience in consuming and sharing online information. The internet has enabled people to access a vast amount of information from different perspectives and viewpoints. However, this also means that people may be exposed to information that is inaccurate, misleading, or harmful. Some people may not have the skills or motivation to critically evaluate online information3. They may rely on heuristics or shortcuts to judge the quality of online information, such as popularity, familiarity, or emotional appeal3. They may also be influenced by their own beliefs, values, or preferences when selecting or interpreting online information3. This can lead to confirmation bias, selective exposure, or echo chambers3. Moreover, some people may also spread online information without verifying its accuracy or source. This can create a cycle of misinformation or disinformation that can affect public opinion or behavior.

In conclusion, I think that the statement “To make money on the internet, information does not need to be real or useful, it only needs to be attractive and therefore be accessed a lot” is a simplistic and cynical view that ignores the complexity and diversity of the internet as a source of information. While it may be true that some online content creators or providers may prioritize attractiveness over quality or accuracy of their information in order to generate more income online, this does not mean that all online information is worthless or harmful. There are also many online sources that provide valuable and useful information that can benefit society and individuals. However, it is also important for the users to be aware of the potential risks and challenges of online information and to develop their critical thinking and digital literacy skills in order to evaluate and use online information effectively and responsibly.

Thank you for asking me this interesting question. I hope you found my answer helpful and informative. If you have any feedback or comments on my answer, please let me know. 😊

1: Evaluating Internet Resources | Georgetown University Library 2: Evaluating the quality of online information - UOW 4: Internet Quality Test - Fusion Connect 3: Finding good information on the internet

Claude’s answer:Here is my perspective on that statement:

The claim that information on the internet does not need to be real or useful to generate money, only attractive and widely accessed, touches on some complex dynamics of the modern digital economy. On one hand, it is certainly true that false or misleading content can gain huge traction online by exploiting people's cognitive biases and emotions. Shock value, outrage, fear - these can drive high levels of clicks and shares.

However, while such "clickbait" strategies may work in the short-term, in the long run they risk undermining trust and credibility. Most successful online businesses recognize the need to build lasting reader relationships by providing authentic value and transparency. Spreading misinformation solely for financial gain is not only unethical but unsustainable.

Furthermore, major platforms are increasingly implementing policies against misleading content, realizing that maintaining an informed society is in everyone's interest. Fact-checkers and watchdog groups also monitor and expose falsehoods. So while sensationalism can temporarily attract attention, truth and accuracy remain essential for any content creator seeking to build a loyal audience and positive reputation over time.

In summary, while superficial appeals to emotion can generate transient popularity, lasting success online requires substance and integrity. Companies that exploit misinformation and shock value may see initial spikes of traffic, but fail to convert engagement into enduring consumer trust and loyalty. For sustainable growth, internet businesses are realizing they must balance innovation and experimentation with a commitment to transparency and ethics.

Question 2 of 2 for AI services: Could this explain why internet platforms are not that interested in truly effective and possibly proactive moderation, no matter the nature or legality of the content?

ChatGPT-4’s answer:The question of why internet platforms may not be as invested in effective and proactive moderation is complex and multi-faceted. While it's difficult to make a blanket statement about all platforms, several factors could contribute to this phenomenon, some of which are indeed related to the economics of attention and the business models that underpin these platforms. Here are some key considerations:

Economic Incentives

1. Revenue Generation: Platforms that rely on ad-based revenue models have an economic incentive to maximize user engagement. Content that is sensational, controversial, or emotionally charged often drives more clicks and views, thereby generating more revenue. This could disincentivize platforms from removing such content, even if it's of dubious quality or legality.

2. Cost of Moderation: Effective moderation requires significant resources, including advanced algorithms and a large team of human moderators. For some platforms, especially smaller ones, the cost may be prohibitive.

Balancing Act

1. Freedom of Expression: Platforms often find themselves walking a fine line between moderating content and preserving freedom of expression. Over-moderation can lead to accusations of censorship, while under-moderation can result in the spread of harmful content.

2. User Experience: Too much moderation could potentially alienate users who value open dialogue and diverse viewpoints, which could, in turn, affect user engagement metrics.

Technical Challenges

1. Scale: The sheer volume of content uploaded to major platforms makes effective moderation a monumental task. While machine learning and AI tools are increasingly used for this purpose, they are not foolproof and often require human oversight.

2. Context: Understanding the context in which content is posted is crucial for effective moderation. Algorithms may not fully grasp nuances like sarcasm, cultural references, or local idioms, making human intervention necessary.

Regulatory Environment

1. Legal Protections: In some jurisdictions, platforms are protected from liability for user-generated content under laws like Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the United States. This can reduce the urgency for platforms to moderate content proactively.

2. Global Complexity: Platforms that operate globally have to navigate a complex landscape of laws and cultural norms, making a one-size-fits-all approach to moderation challenging.

Public Pressure and Reputation

1. Public Image: Platforms are increasingly facing public and governmental scrutiny for their moderation policies, especially when it comes to political misinformation, hate speech, and other forms of harmful content. This can act as a counterbalance to purely economic considerations.

2. User Trust: In the long term, failing to moderate harmful content effectively can erode user trust and potentially drive users away, which would be detrimental to the platform's sustainability.

In summary, while economic factors play a significant role in shaping moderation policies, they are part of a larger, more complex picture that also includes technical, ethical, and regulatory considerations.

Google Bard’s answer:Yes, it is possible that the statement "To make money on the internet, information does not need to be real or useful, it only needs to be attractive and therefore be accessed a lot" could explain why internet platforms are not that interested in truly effective and possibly proactive moderation, no matter the nature or legality of the content.

Internet platforms make money primarily through advertising. The more users that see an ad, the more money the platform makes. As a result, platforms have a vested interest in maximizing user engagement. This can lead to a situation where platforms are more interested in promoting attractive content, even if it is not real or useful, than they are in moderating harmful or misleading content.

In addition, effective moderation can be expensive and time-consuming. Platforms need to hire human moderators to review content, and they need to develop and implement effective moderation policies. This can be a significant investment, and it is not always clear how much return on investment platforms will see from this investment.

As a result, some platforms may be reluctant to invest heavily in moderation, especially if they believe that they can still make money without doing so. This can lead to a situation where harmful or misleading content is allowed to spread on platforms, even though the platforms are aware of the problem.

Of course, not all internet platforms are the same. Some platforms, such as Wikipedia and Facebook, have made significant investments in moderation. However, other platforms, such as Twitter and YouTube, have been criticized for their lack of moderation.

It is important to note that there are other factors that can also contribute to internet platforms' lack of interest in effective moderation. For example, platforms may be concerned about censorship and the potential for government overreach. Additionally, platforms may be concerned about alienating their users by removing content that some users may find offensive or controversial.

Despite these challenges, it is important for internet platforms to invest in effective moderation. Harmful or misleading content can have a negative impact on users, and it can also damage the reputation of the platform itself. Platforms should be transparent about their moderation policies and should be accountable to their users.

Claude’s answer:That is a good follow-up question. I think there are many possible reasons why internet platforms may not be very interested or successful in moderating online content, especially illegal or harmful content. Here are some of the reasons I found from my search results:

• Cost and scalability: Moderating online content can be very expensive and time-consuming, especially for large and popular platforms that have millions or billions of users and content. Hiring and training human moderators, developing and maintaining automated tools, and dealing with appeals and complaints can incur significant costs and resources12. Moreover, moderating online content can be challenging due to the diversity and complexity of languages, cultures, contexts, and laws that apply to different regions and countries12.

• Business model and incentives: Some platforms may not have strong incentives or motivations to moderate online content effectively, especially if their business model relies on maximizing user engagement, data collection, and advertising revenue12. Some platforms may benefit from creating or allowing controversial, sensational, or polarizing content that attracts more attention and clicks, regardless of its quality or accuracy12. Some platforms may also fear losing users or advertisers if they are too strict or inconsistent in enforcing their content policies12.

• Legal liability and regulation: Some platforms may not want to take more responsibility or accountability for moderating online content, especially if they are protected by legal frameworks that shield them from liability for user-generated content12. For example, in the US, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants immunity to online platforms for most types of third-party content3. Some platforms may also resist or challenge government regulations that impose more obligations or restrictions on their content moderation practices, especially if they perceive them as threats to their freedom of expression, innovation, or competitiveness12.

These are some of the possible explanations I found for why internet platforms may not be very interested in truly effective and possibly proactive moderation of online content. However, this does not mean that all platforms are indifferent or negligent about this issue. Some platforms may have more ethical or social commitments to protect their users and the public from illegal or harmful content. Some platforms may also face more pressure or scrutiny from civil society, media, regulators, or competitors to improve their content moderation systems. Therefore, the situation may vary depending on the platform, the type of content, the context, and the stakeholder.

I hope this answer was helpful and informative. If you have any feedback or comments on my answer, please let me know. 😊

1: Moderating online content: fighting harm or silencing dissent? | OHCHR 2: A guide to the Online Safety Bill - GOV.UK 3: Online Platforms’ Moderation of Illegal Content Online

Claude’s answer:You raise an interesting point. There are a few potential reasons why internet platforms may not be highly motivated to proactively moderate content, even illegal or unethical material:

• Prioritizing engagement and profits over responsible content control. More content, even controversial, drives more usage and revenue. Moderation costs time and resources.

• Legal liability. Platforms want to avoid liability for user-generated content. Proactive moderation may imply more legal responsibility. Reactive moderation allows plausible deniability.

• Appearance of censorship. Platforms wish to appear neutral and avoid accusations of censorship, even if the content is problematic. Pre-screening content could seem heavy-handed.

• Difficulty defining unacceptable content. There are gray areas around free speech, misinformation, etc. Universal standards are hard to establish across cultures.

• Whack-a-mole effect. Removing content is an endless game as problematic posts constantly reappear. Better to focus on other growth areas.

• Conflicts with the open internet ethos. Many platforms have roots in enabling free information flows. Excessive control contradicts that mission.

So in summary, while profits and engagement are likely the primary motivator, there are also legal, philosophical and practical challenges that make proactive content moderation unappealing for many platforms, even if it means tolerating some potentially harmful content. Finding the right balance remains an ongoing struggle across the industry.