The only way this gets past the first amendment is if it can be specifically tied to elections. It’s already being challenged in court. The GOP is funding it.
If this is ML-targeted, frankly it’d be a great test case for making the judicial system decide whether content generated largely or wholly by a machine learning system shall even be considered as “speech” in the traditional sense, since it’s the system doing the “speaking”, not a human, and the Bill of Rights does not offer any protection to non-humans.
Genuinely fantastic.
…why would you restrict it like that…?
Because it’s not a fix, it’s a concept of a fix. It’s intentionally gutless.
The only way this gets past the first amendment is if it can be specifically tied to elections. It’s already being challenged in court. The GOP is funding it.
If this is ML-targeted, frankly it’d be a great test case for making the judicial system decide whether content generated largely or wholly by a machine learning system shall even be considered as “speech” in the traditional sense, since it’s the system doing the “speaking”, not a human, and the Bill of Rights does not offer any protection to non-humans.
That would hurt the bottom line of the investors, so I doubt the Supreme Board Room goes that way.
Because they don’t want to punish people who create things about a random person who later becomes a candidate a year from now.