Infopocalypse Now

[Fist and Faith]

Do you consider people believing Gilligan's Island was real to be of the same class of problem as, for example, Russia publishing a fake news story that the Ukrainian army publicly crucified a small child in the square in Slovyansk, which they published in order to provoke anti-Ukrainian sentiment among Russians while Russia was invading Ukraine? Or is it the same kind of problem as a story, at one point one the top 4 stories passed around on Facebook, that a CDC doctor was claiming the flu vaccine was causing a deadly flu outbreak?

No to either of those thing vs Gilligan's Island. But our government and news sources have put out some comparably nasty propaganda.

I'm saying regardless of the media source -TV, newspaper, or town cryer - people have always believed inaccurate information to be true - whether the source was knowingly lying, simply wrong, or people took it the wrong way. At no time has this not been a problem. People have always lied, people have always been ignorant, and people have always been stupid. And at no time have we been able to find a solution.

Yes, the problem now goes farther, faster. But the same is true of accurate information.

[wayfriend]

Although you are not stating it explicitly, it sounds like you are saying that we cannot attach blame to those who set out to deceive. Or, at least, we shouldn't concern ourselves with them.

Because "Oh, there's always people believing wrong things" sounds like a call to not worry about bad actors. And if you do think we should worry about them, the fact that they have become more powerful and more ubiquitous should raise some concern.

So just asking for clarity.

[Vraith]

the fact that they have become more powerful and more ubiquitous should raise some concern.

Yes. The potential magnitude of the damage is really unimaginable to most---maybe ALL---people. The Holocaust and the nuking of Japan are REALLY comprehended by very few people, and that entire cohort will be extinct soon. Everyone else only has a loose abstract or analogical understanding. The potential damage now is far beyond both those events [and maybe the entire war they're embedded in] combined...though it needn't be war-ish result/incident, or instant/quickly developing to end up that bad or worse in the long run.

In re Hashi above---yea, there is not a big red "Easy Nuke Launch" button...
BUT it can happen with fewer restraints/constraints and much greater rapidity than it seems you are implying.

And hackers normally can't act as quickly as in the flicks---or even close to it.
But that's not how most of it actually works. Mostly, the infiltration is already in place, it's been prepped. All it takes is and execute command.

And once a piece of falsehood is released into the wild to breed on its own a bad actor mightn't NEED to do any hacking...or anything at all except cause a digital traffic jam. There are millions of people, unknown numbers of organizations [including at least half a dozen of our own governmental departments] who can do that on demand. Everything is already in place.

I'm not convinced those things are inevitable, or even likely---but possible? Yea, possible, and not insignificantly small probability.

[Cail]

Although you are not stating it explicitly, it sounds like you are saying that we cannot attach blame to those who set out to deceive. Or, at least, we shouldn't concern ourselves with them.

Because "Oh, there's always people believing wrong things" sounds like a call to not worry about bad actors. And if you do think we should worry about them, the fact that they have become more powerful and more ubiquitous should raise some concern.

So just asking for clarity.

I think that's a misread. Of course we can attach blame to those who set out to deceive. The problem is that we've lost sight of objective truth, and too often an overarching narrative becomes more important than facts.

Case in point, "hands up, don't shoot" was a lie. But it was a lie that spread like wildfire. And if you doubted that lie, you were branded as all sorts of awful. When the government made it absolutely clear that it was a lie, did people issue retractions? Was there mass mea culpas? Nope. It was swept under the rug until the next outrage came up. BLM and all the rioters, as well as any media outlet that propagated that lie are responsible for millions of dollars worth of damage. And not a damn thing has happened to them.

To your second point, I question whether or not they're more ubiquitous, but certainly agree that they have much more power and reach.

[Zarathustra]

Case in point, "hands up, don't shoot" was a lie. But it was a lie that spread like wildfire. And if you doubted that lie, you were branded as all sorts of awful. When the government made it absolutely clear that it was a lie, did people issue retractions? Was there mass mea culpas? Nope. It was swept under the rug until the next outrage came up. BLM and all the rioters, as well as any media outlet that propagated that lie are responsible for millions of dollars worth of damage. And not a damn thing has happened to them.

People are usually only concerned with misinformation that seems harmful to their own political agendas, rather than actual harm in the form of looting, riots, and the damage done by perpetuating myths like the "cops' war on blacks."

I'm not concerned that errors will be made. I'm more concerned that few people seem interested in error correction. People love to fear monger. But when you present things that could mitigate these fears, they are far less interested.

Technology's ability to fool people is nothing compared to people's ability to fool themselves. But it's a lot easier--and, paradoxically: comforting--to be worried about the threat of the nefarious "other" than to worry about your own gullibility. People would rather invent boogimen than face the terror of their own responsibility for being misled.

The fact that people want to stifle debate (e.g. global warming) or ignore counter evidence when it goes against their political world view (e.g. all the witnesses that said Michael Brown attacked a cop) is far more dangerous and alarming than infopocalypse. But it's also the easiest to correct, if people would just listen with an open mind.

[Cail]

Case in point, "hands up, don't shoot" was a lie. But it was a lie that spread like wildfire. And if you doubted that lie, you were branded as all sorts of awful. When the government made it absolutely clear that it was a lie, did people issue retractions? Was there mass mea culpas? Nope. It was swept under the rug until the next outrage came up. BLM and all the rioters, as well as any media outlet that propagated that lie are responsible for millions of dollars worth of damage. And not a damn thing has happened to them.

People are usually only concerned with misinformation that seems harmful to their own political agendas, rather than actual harm in the form of looting, riots, and the damage done by perpetuating myths like the "cops' war on blacks."

I'm not concerned that errors will be made. I'm more concerned that few people seem interested in error correction. People love to fear monger. But when you present things that could mitigate these fears, they are far less interested.

And that's the problem with scenarios like this. This was a verifiable lie. Every policing authority, and every judicial entity that has reviewed the Mike Brown case has come up with the same answer.

But we have a media and public figures (both elected and otherwise) who jump on things like this in order to whip people up. And every single time they're proven wrong, yet every single time they'll immediately try to whip people right back up.

[wayfriend]

Mostly, the infiltration is already in place, it's been prepped. All it takes is and execute command.

After having watched misinformation campaigns come and go, you begin to see the art behind how it is laid, piece by piece, like the components of the classic mouse trap. Start rumors about the credibility of people who will be key figures at later stages. Make odd claims that establish nefarious motives for certain organizations. Even simply piling on false story after false story until people begin to think maybe there's something to it.

Then, it crystallizes with one "execute command", as you say. By that point, even entirely innocent people are arguing how the false story is true, by referencing supporting evidence that they don't even know is also false.

I think of it as "an edifice of myth".

[Fist and Faith]

Although you are not stating it explicitly, it sounds like you are saying that we cannot attach blame to those who set out to deceive. Or, at least, we shouldn't concern ourselves with them.

Because "Oh, there's always people believing wrong things" sounds like a call to not worry about bad actors. And if you do think we should worry about them, the fact that they have become more powerful and more ubiquitous should raise some concern.

So just asking for clarity.

I'm saying it's always been a problem. Because it's a problem of human nature; not technology/the internet. Yes, just as greed is a part of human nature, and always been a problem, we have to oppose it. Alas, were stuck with these things. We've never been able to changes human nature. We've always had consequences for those who steal out of greed (or any other reason, for that matter), but not for spreading incorrect information. That I know of?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

In some instances it is against the law to lie--perjury, libel/slander, etc.--but in general telling a lie is the responsibility of the one who originates it and spreading the lie is the responsibility of those who spread it and/or believe it.

If I put up a fake news story on Facebook and you believe it then you're just a sucker and I laugh at you. If my news story results in an election outcome that might not otherwise have happened then all the voters are suckers and I will have a grand time laughing my ass off at them.

People who get their information primarily via social media deserve what happens to them for being suckers.

[Vraith]

I'm not concerned that errors will be made. I'm more concerned that few people seem interested in error correction.

But do you have that same lack of interest?
[[as I said elsewhere, I suspect it's likely everyone has this in at least some domains/on some issues]]...
But take "hand's up."
I more believed it than not at the beginning. Because the situation happens far more often than it gets elevated to mass attention. And not ONLY to Black peoples, just more often to them.
And I know that from both personal experience/witnessing AND research/evidence.
I was pretty damn irritated when it turned out to be false in this particular case...because I KNEW it would remain a "proof" for both sides.
I was irritated when it hung on anyway amongst some people/in some media..even though I thought it would, hoped it wouldn't.
But even more so when it became the defining proof amongst those who think it is almost ALWAYS false. [[despite anticipating that, too]].
Because it isn't. And the powers that be in that place and other places do this shit, and related oppressive shit, way more than is admitted.
Error correction [particular]---this thing didn't happen this time.
Error correction [general]---It DOES happen, it ISN't rare. And they get away with it...which makes it KEEP happening.
For every person who still believes the original [false] thing,
there are 5 or 10 or 100 who think this particular incident proves the entire issue is bullshit.
They're wrong...and anyone interested in error correction knows that. If "hand's up" is "fake news," the, the denial of the existence of a big problem is a fantasy that's supplemented itself with a hallucinogen.

[Cail]

Here's the thing though, no one has any control over how people interpret the truth. And in this particular case, though police shootings do happen, they're much more rare than you'd think based on reporting. The deafening silence from the media on Baltimore, New Orleans, and Chicago is proof positive.

By choosing to follow a narrative rather than objectively reporting the news, the media itself has sown the seeds of distrust.

[Vraith]

By choosing to follow a narrative rather than objectively reporting the news, the media itself has sown the seeds of distrust.

I agree that happens...and it might be both widening and deepening.
But isn't that at least in part due to the fact that too many people simply won't watch/read that kind of news---and fewer consumers equals fewer dollars equals fewer neutral/objective sources.

[Cail]

By choosing to follow a narrative rather than objectively reporting the news, the media itself has sown the seeds of distrust.

I agree that happens...and it might be both widening and deepening.
But isn't that at least in part due to the fact that too many people simply won't watch/read that kind of news---and fewer consumers equals fewer dollars equals fewer neutral/objective sources.

It's an ouroboros. People want glitzy news, news organizations want ratings, and scared people keep coming back.

And people freaking love confirmation bias.

[Skyweir]

Indeed they do _

And social media platforms know this ... hence you are fed all the data that interests you. The more you like this issue or that issue, you are fed more of the same.

And youre right people are not at all discriminating.

So you dwell within the confines of a world of your own making. Unless you callenge the data youre fed .. and Z is right adopt open mindedness. Though few of us will challenge our own strongly held views, in favour of correction.

Humans far prefer confirmation bias to facts or truth that challenges pre-existing beliefs.

[Cail]

The fact remains that even knowing this, people still get the bulk of their news from either social media, or clearly biased sites like Vox, Breitbart, Daily Kos, Newsmax, or CNN.

I was recently outed as an "impure" Democrat because I read websites that don't carry the DNC's water. People hate free thinkers, we're harder to control.

[Skyweir]

Wow .. thats .. nope got nothing

They have their own water and on websites

Where theres an agenda to push the pushers will want to control the information. It would seem that theres little to prevent the blatant use of misinformation if it serves the agendas interest.

Makes it all the more important for humans to be actively involved in fact checking.

[Cail]

Makes it all the more important for humans to be actively involved in fact checking.

Absolutely. And people need to remember that it's not heresy to ask questions.

[Zarathustra]

But do you have that same lack of interest?

Seriously? Of course not.

But take "hand's up."
I more believed it than not at the beginning. Because the situation happens far more often than it gets elevated to mass attention. And not ONLY to Black peoples, just more often to them.
And I know that from both personal experience/witnessing AND research/evidence.
I was pretty damn irritated when it turned out to be false in this particular case...because I KNEW it would remain a "proof" for both sides.
I was irritated when it hung on anyway amongst some people/in some media..even though I thought it would, hoped it wouldn't.
But even more so when it became the defining proof amongst those who think it is almost ALWAYS false. [[despite anticipating that, too]].
Because it isn't. And the powers that be in that place and other places do this shit, and related oppressive shit, way more than is admitted.

You were irritated when it turned out not to be true that a cop gunned down a man with his hands up?

That's fucked up. I would think it's cause for celebration, not irritation. But I suspect you're like a lot of other people out there who were hoping that it was true. That's why you and so many others were so ready to believe it. You have a narrative, and when something happens that backs up that narrative, it's good. When something doesn't back up the narrative, it's irritating.

What's up with the "happens way more often than it gets elevated to mass attention"? You honestly think there are more instances of cops shooting people with their hands up? I haven't heard of a single one. Every time a cop shoots a black man, we seem to hear about it. Most of the time it's while some criminal was resisting arrest or disobeying orders, even the ones that do get reported. Do you have some access to this massive list of shootings that no one else hears about, or are you just talking about your assumptions?

[Skyweir]

https://me.me/market?meme_id=9367245

Which is why humans get so upset with views that challenge their own

Z pretty sure you know thats not what V meant. It seems clear that V was highlighting the issue with cognitive bias. That it simply reinforces a particular belief. In this case seems like he was suggesting it would have the effect of strengthening support for police. Which in your strange and weird nation police corruption and violence against US citizens of all persuasions seems rife, but in particular against your African American population.

Please note I have no familiarity with or opinion on this.

[Vraith]

You were irritated when it turned out not to be true that a cop gunned down a man with his hands up?

Every time a cop shoots a black man, we seem to hear about it.

First part, you know damn well that isn't any part of what I said.

Second part Really? Well, that's possibly true...it possibly SEEMS to you like you hear about all of them. But I doubt you do.
For 2016 [or maybe it was 2017], around 300 black men were shot and killed by police.
Almost 1 a day...you heard about all of them?
Also, another 700 or so were shot but lived.
You heard about all them, too??