in yes/no type questions, 50% success rate is the absolute worst one can do. Any worse and you're just giving an inverted correct answer more than half the time

This isn't the Cthulhu universe. There isn't some horrible truth ChatGPT can reveal to you which will literally drive you insane. Some people use ChatGPT a lot, some people have psychotic episodes, and there's going to be enough overlap to write sensationalist stories even if there's no causative relationship. I suppose ChatGPT might be harmful to someone who is already delusional by (after pressure) expressing agreement, but I'm not sure about that because as far as I know, you can't talk a person into or out of psychosis.

Also a work of fiction

Yes, every application has access to everything. The only exception are those weird apps that use the universal framework or whatever that thing is called, those need to ask for permissions. But most of the apps on your PC have full access to everything. And Windows does collect and upload a lot of personal information and they could easily upload everything on your system. The same of course applies for the apps as well, they have access to everything except privileged folders (those usually don't contain your personal data, but system files).

Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.

Cool, so that's a specific problem with your needed use case. That's not what you said before.

It's an actively hostile act, regardless of what your beliefs are on the copyright system.