>"We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to," Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh.
Why do you think that the curation is going to be done by the government or by government appointed gatekeepers?
I think it's clear that's he's asking for a rebuilt mainstream media so that people can at agree on facts.
For example, until half a year ago, important details in articles about terrorism were left out, but you could still sort of fill in the blanks yourself. Now, every single article about an incident has the same stock phrase: "Hintergrund und Motiv der Tat sind noch völlig unklar", and nothing else.
The elision of all details is supported by the flimsiest of justifications, namely that the terrorists relish and are spurned by the media attention (as if their religious fanaticism doesn't play the major role). There is, of course, not a shred of evidence for this contention, except for the opinion of a handful of "experts". It seems to me that a terrorist attack is newsworthy. That newspapers refuse to report details (say, by interviewing a witness) is an awful abrogation of their duty. Sometimes reading the news here feels like living in Soviet Russia.
Facebook is leaking, I can already imagine what the clickbait headline looked like...
"Obama to assemble government censorship agency"
"We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to," Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh.
"There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don't have any basis in anything that's actually happening in the world"
Obama in Pittsburgh PA 10/13/2016
"We [the people or the government - does not matter really] are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people [the people] agree to,"
If I interpret "We" as "the government" it still does not matter if "the people" can agree on it as in functioning democracy.
"There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we [the people] can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we [the people] have to discard, because they just don't have any basis in anything that's actually happening in the world"
What do you think "we" refers to?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q="We+are+going+to+have+to+rebuild+w...
Note: I really don't have an issue with Facebook doing this if they want. They're a company after all, not the government. I can just choose to get the information they deem 'bad' elsewhere.