by guest

So what's your opinion?

I mean, it's very well done and a disturbing prediction, but I'm not sure what message they are trying to convey. Any insights you'd like to share?

by Johan Petersson

I believe the creators of this piece intended it to be partly satirical, and to provoke you into thinking about the effects of technology on media. Which is good. That said, dragging the death of The New York Times into it suggests a preference for traditional press and journalism.

The way I see it news is already very much tailored according to our prejudices, due to confirmation bias by media consumers as well as producers. News reinforcing established and popular views is exactly what people want, whether they know it or not, which is precisely what makes the EPIC scenario scary as well as plausible.

The outlined worst case scenario is not that much different from what we have today; technology amplifies but does not create the problem of biased editing and reporting. On the other hand, algorithmic editing should be able to provide objective news, something traditional journalism has never been capable of. A double-edged sword, like all technology.

The future is notoriously hard to predict. All I'm willing to say is that while the future probably won't be as black and white as this presentation (pun most certainly intended), critical thinking is one skill that will never cease to be important.