zlacker

>>southe+(OP)
This whole article is really confusing. It sounds like there were two things:

- Covid disinformation

- Some nonsense about Hunter Biden

and they're being conflated. What does Hunter Biden's laptop have to do with preventing Covid disinformation? A disease that was estimated to kill up to 30m people worldwide.

>>scott_+O4
The issue is the science wasn’t in yet to accurately determine what was COVID disinformation, and they went off of politically motivated directives in both cases.

One example is Facebook suppressing the lab-leak theory until May 2021 [0]. Another is it deemed posts claiming the vaccine may not prevent transmission misinformation, despite it not being known otherwise [1].

[0] https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/26/facebook-ban-covid-...

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-check-scientists-...

>>ecuafl+I5
> Below are a couple examples from ChatGPT:

Please don't do this.

>>defros+16
What’s the preferred way of citing my source? Or are you saying ChatGPT isn’t a valid source?

>>ecuafl+m6
It really isn’t. Worse than citing Wikipedia.

>>chgs+Z6
It would help to have some sources to back up your claim, but I’ve gone ahead and updated my comment regardless by popular demand.

>>ecuafl+79
ChatGPT, Are you a credible source of information?

> I aim to provide accurate and reliable information based on the extensive range of texts I’ve been trained on, which include a variety of reputable sources. However, because I’m not infallible and my knowledge is based on patterns in data rather than direct verification, it’s a good idea to cross-check critical or detailed information with primary sources or expert opinions, especially for academic or highly specific topics. If you have any doubts or need detailed, current, or specialized information, consulting additional sources or experts is always a smart approach.