What changed
Barack Obama told a Glasgow audience on 15 October that online platforms increasingly reward anger and fear, but said a drift towards extremism is “not inevitable.” Speaking with journalist Sathnam Sanghera at the OVO Hydro, he called for a balance between free speech and regulation as AI makes false information harder to distinguish from truth.
Why it matters
Obama’s argument is less about predicting the next election than about who sets the rules for the information people absorb every day. Platforms can connect people around democracy and human rights, but the same tools can also help hate groups spread resentment and suspicion.
That puts governments and technology companies in a difficult position. Rules strong enough to limit propaganda and incitement can also threaten legitimate debate if they are poorly designed. Obama’s proposed answer is new institutions and mechanisms that protect disagreement while helping people establish basic facts.
The harder question is whether anyone will build them. If governments and platforms do not act, AI could deepen an information problem that is already feeding political polarisation and discouraging young people. If they do, the challenge will be preserving open argument without allowing deliberate falsehoods to overwhelm it.
Obama’s broader point is deliberately unfashionable: hope is not optimism about an easy outcome. It is a choice to keep treating change as possible, even when the tools shaping public life are being used for harm as well as good.
Comments
No comments yet.