That’s what „flood the zone“ ultimately means. It’s effectively no different than the other solution usually proposed, which is banning social media. Except than bans can be avoided, people will seek to challenge them, etc.

It depends on how you present it. It doesn’t have to be „boring good“. And even then you can still work e.g. on the comment area (reactive, not original content).

What if you don’t use it as only measure? You launch 2 things in parallel: 1. neutralization: flood the zone, exhaust everyone, 2. provide a solution: sane channels that make clear how thinking, fact checking and honest dialogue are the only way out.

I think that flooding the zone with alternative slop would have a neutralizing effect. At the end everyone gets exhausted, which is a better outcome than allowing right wing slop to spread completely unhindered. Of course people will then start protecting their spaces, moderating the slop they don’t like, but you‘d at least have neutralized the public spaces, which would be a win.

That would be for people that are trusting the original AI.

It could, among other things, link to sources.

It doesn’t even have to be accurate. It suffices if it makes clear that there are different perspectives, or that you simply can’t trust anything. People exhausted by contradicting slop is a better outcome than allowing only one type of slop to take over.

Oh no what are we going to do… a far right AI-avatar! People know that you can create 10000+ left, center, etc. AI-avatars, as well as fact checking AI-avatars debunking what this one says, right?