You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
A consumer of sponsored content must be told that: 1. The content they are listening to is sponsored 2. Who paid for it 3. How much was paid 4. What is the apparent motive of the payer 5. What is the stated opinion of the payee producing the media.
Companies have an incentive to downplay that they are sponsoring this. Because of this, it will always be more successful to not do so, creating an incentive for dishonest behavior.
Media outlets that wish to maintain their trusted reputation always have incentives to be as transparent as they possibly can. Because of this it will always be in their interest to maintain a high standard of transparency in presenting sponsored content.
By your own admission, people currently don't care about trustworthiness. Why would they in the future?
Trustworthiness of media sources makes it easier to evaluate content. So long as sponsored content is transparent people can choose the credibility they assign to any source. Sponsored content simply has less credibility and requires more verification but may still contain valuable information
Advertising research has shown that even knowledge of advertising does not mitigate its effect. Similarly, cognition of biased content and monitoring does not necessarily mitigate its effect. See: Brand recall
Once people are told that media is sponsored they will easily be able to go online to check if the facts presented are true. It is very difficult to censor publication on the internet. It is relatively easy for anyone to publish the truth.
This assumes that the truth is commonly known. A lot of the time there are lies perpetuated before the truth becomes obvious.
Anyone with internet access has the ability to evaluate if sponsored content contradicts the consensus opinion on any given subject. This imperfect knowledge is sufficient for making rational judgements about the likelihood of any reporting being biased. Perfect knowledge is not a requirement.
If the truth is not commonly known, it's safe to say it isn't prominent on the internet either. Your argument is not valid, and you did not address my point.
Perfect knowledge doesn't exist, that's not a reason to introduce bias where it doesn't need to exist.
Not all sponsored content is inherently biased. Only some sponsored content is biased. A rational measurement of bias is the degree to which an opinion deviates from societal consensus and not from "truth" as an absolute. Individuals simply need to determine relative deviation from consensus only
Omission complicates truth finding. Specific claims might not be falsifiable, but other claims might not even be known to the audience. As such, fact-checking may not even be initiated.
More sponsored content implies an increase in profit oriented content and less content related to non-profit topics.
Sponsoring content allows for users to make higher quality content.
In today's information age the presence of more media outlets and the increased capacity for people to publish produces more and inherently better watchdogs. These alert all of us when fallacies are present. The average person simply needs to be better at curating media not discerning it.
This is part of why people distrust sponsored content. Because bias is obvious, they are curating the media they take in.
It is not clear that we should treat any news source as a completely trusted oracle. Sponsored content forces everyone to treat all media with greater scrutiny seeking out more sources when validating all facts. This process is fundamentally beneficial to promoting critical thinking in society
Just like on reddit, you're putting words in my mouth. Nobody has ever claimed that a news source is completely trustworthy. We are making the claim that sponsored content is clearly not trustworthy.
Not all sponsored content is untrustworthy only some sponsored content is. Trustworthiness is measured from the deviation from societal consensus which can be determined cheaply in minutes due to the power of the internet. This is what makes your arguments although still valid less interesting.
Greater amount of work and fact-checking only adds burden to the consumer. Already, many fields such as science struggle with consolidating data. With larger media presence, this problem is compounded.
We don't need to add more distrust to an already overburdened information system.
"produces more and inherently better watchdogs."
If the watchdogs are already in place, why does the consumer need to replace them?
I assume this was a misphrasing, or something.
A greater capacity for more people to publish cheaply and disseminate facts faster allows for shorter news cycles with greater participation. Access to content produced by watchdogs is more readily available forcing sponsored content to a higher level of accountability than was previously possible.
Again, you misunderstand the scoring system. You are disagreeing, so it's supposed to be a "but".
If this were true then MSNBC and Fox wouldn't be around. After all, they don't produce unbiased content, and much of what they say is easy to prove false. So why isn't this effect showing there?
The bias of these media outlets match the personal bias of their consumers preferences. The danger of sponsored content is that the biases of those who produce the media do not match up with those who consume it yet those consumers are not able to discern that there is a discrepancy.
This assumes that consumers of media actively seek to consume primarily media which matches their own personal biases. This may not be true yet American media often appears to be polarized along political party lines.
I am not assuming that all people will know lies in sponsored content every time they see them. I assume someone in society will always be able to recognize truth from fiction and will publish the truth in response. Assumes society has censorship resistant publishing platforms.
Society does not have such platforms
Although the internet as a publishing platform is not perfect it is censorship resistant it does allow the majority of citizens to publish and quickly disseminate information and this information is easily searchable allowing for content on a specific topic to be cheaply and quickly discovered.
That's not what people do, though. If this was how people behaved, you would already see it. And by your own admission, they aren't doing it.
Use of tools which are readily available is at the discretion of each individual. The ability to know if any sponsored content deviates from societal consensus requires minutes of research not hours or days. This was not possible in previous generations.
We fail to reevaluate the worth of sponsored content in light of new more efficient publishing technology oppositions concerning its value create an anachronistic fallacy. It is easier to know the current societal consensus of any fact today than it has ever been in the past.
Why would people think those individuals are telling the truth? It's equally possible they would be viewed as conspiracy theorists.
Even if you cannot know an absolute truth about sponsored content, access to the internet allows you to know what the consensus viewpoint (of society) is for any fact and the validity of sponsored content is always made in reference to the consensus not "truth" as an absolute value.
As a side note, the argument type is supposed to be about the argument just above you. This one is supposed to be a "but" because you're disagreeing with me, not a "because" for agreeing with the contention. Otherwise the scoring gets thrown off.
"validity of sponsored content is made in reference to the consensus not truth as an absolute value."
No there is a truth. If something is sponsored it is more likely to be different from this truth. Saying you can find out for yourself is bogus because the media is supposed to be that source.
Anyone being able to cheaply and quickly publish combined with the ability to search all available publications in seconds allows for more media sources which don't align themselves with sponsored content (SC). Distortion of the truth would require SC replace 51% of all published content available
This is largely irrelevant. Any claims that can be verified as false wouldn't appear in advertising anyway under legal consideration.
Advertising and sponsored content can influence consumers despite any fact-checking.
This is why we need a more nuanced approach to content evaluation in terms of tone & delivery. Consumers can benefit once trained to recognize how media influences listeners and the best way to do that is to expose listeners to a wide range of media so they can recognize unhealthy bias when present