> There is so much stuffing for a simple idea that I'm not sure if this piece deserves its own title, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.
Frankly I had the same thought writing it :D
It's more of a stake in the ground sort of a thing I guess?
What I really want is somebody saying "hey, there is an open standard already here" so I can use it.
The idea has some legs, but they are weak for the many reasons pointed
out to me by fair criticism of "digital veganism". The main one is
that labelling is one small part of quality. Tijmen Schep in his 2016
"Design My Privacy" [1] proposed some really cool ideas around quality
and trustworthiness labelling of IoT/mobile devices, but ran into the
same issues. Responsibility ultimately lies with the consumer, and so
long as consumers remain uneducated as to why low quality is harmful,
and cannot verify the provenance of what they consume or the harmful
effects, nothing will change.
Right now we seem to be at the stage of "It's just McDonald's/KFC for
data - junk food is convenient, cheap and not a problem - therefore
mass production generative content won't be a problem".
The food analogy is powerful, but has limits, and I urge you to dig
into Digital Vegan [2] if you want to take it further.
Frankly I had the same thought writing it :D
It's more of a stake in the ground sort of a thing I guess? What I really want is somebody saying "hey, there is an open standard already here" so I can use it.