https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook...
There's no comparing the incentives, resources, and potential for harm between the state and citizens.
The point being, the harm the government is doing right now is obscured from the people, but with AI trawling all public data, these issues can be revealed much sooner.
Giving each side force multipliers doesn't even the playing field, it makes the absolute gap even larger.
Secondly, your point would be valid if the force multipliers applied equally. This likely isn't true.
So which side gains more advantage? If the government could sufficiently obscure their actions such that the data weren't available to analyze, that would give it the advantage. However, the government is constrained by certain transparency requirements that don't apply to citizens, so by default, citizens know more about their representatives than their representatives know about their citizens.
The executive branch losing a court case isn't answering to the people. It's answering to the judicial branch. Being granted explicit permission as a citizen to do something you legally should be allowed to do isn't gaining anything at all. An innocent person being allowed to remain innocent again isn't giving anything to citizens. Those are basic rights..
> If the government could sufficiently obscure their actions such that the data weren't available to analyze, that would give it the advantage
The govt already does this across the board. I'm not certain how you could argue otherwise. Taking a issue in the news recently, we still don't have national rates on use of force by the police across the country. As in literally no-one knows what the police is doing because centralized records aren't kept, and every area does it differently. Police departments have fought body cameras. Fought enabling citizens to even see how they are executing their jobs.
It was a sliver of data available under Obama (although to his credit, his admin tried to improve it), and yet: https://www.engadget.com/2017/04/14/trump-admin-killing-open...
Statisticians already do this with elections around the world, for instance.
And the chocolate ration has been increased to 20g this week!
(apologies to George Orwell)
Google decides if you are part of the everyone included in their AI for everyone
This is empirically not true, especially if you look at the policies of and donations by Google, Twitter, and Facebook.
Google donates to both parties; Twitter obviously has a very laissez-faire to the Right's voices, including the POTUS, and its COO recently suggested that if Trump canceled briefings, he could take questions directly on Twitter. And the evidence and rumors continue to swirl about how multiple Republican Party candidates campaigns used Facebook's own incredibly specific ad targeting, which they did not revise until after the election. (cf. Cambridge Analytica, contracted by Cruz and then Trump to "manage" the election outcome.)
[1] http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/303295-how-faceb...
[2] http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-supp...
I'm curious, what in your opinion are some "right leaning" fact checkers or "agnotistic" fact checkers?
We're all human and we have our biases, whether we like it or not. It doesn't take much effort to tweak an assertion to go from "Mostly false" to "mostly true" - it just depends on which one the writer favors. My BS detector goes haywire whenever someone claims to offer non-subjective anything. tl;dr investigate facts and claims yourself and never trust those who have power over you, even if you vote for them!
Also, what are some "right-leaning" fact checkers then?
Twitter isn't laissez-faire with right leaning voices. They actively suppress them. They remove hashtags from trending daily. They mark posts as containing explicit content. It's getting ridiculous how much all of these companies are trying to silence the right.
Facebook will take almost anyone's money on their ads. But they were also caught this last election cycle actively suppressing conservatives. It got so bad Zuckerberg had to come out and do damage control by inviting conservative commentators to a sit-down or piss off half his US userbase.