Infopocalypse Now

[wayfriend]

This may be the most important thing you read this year.

Infopocalypse Now

[Zarathustra]

Yawn. How did I know that 'the most important thing you can read' was something super scary? Will this be as bad as Beepocolypse? Remember when that was going to be the end of the world as we know it? LOL. I have grown bored of the chicken littles.

Everyone was worried that Wikipedia could be edited by anyone, and that this would mean we couldn't trust the info because the 'experts' were no longer the gate keepers of knowledge and fact. But it turned out this fear was unjustified.

The same will happen with 'infopocolypse.' It will be checked by reality and the power of people to correct the record. We have had people trying to lie to us since people first began to talk (e.g. every religion in history). This is the same phenomenon with the addition of technophobia thrown in. The alarmism itself is an attempt to manipulate us.

[Vraith]

It will be checked by reality and the power of people to correct the record.

I agree the threat, as described, may be a bit overblown...perhaps...but only if it is actively confronted and fought. Which is what the guy wants.

But your statement quoted above...that is just untrue. I could list dozens of things without breaking a sweat that have been checked by reality and had corrected records and STILL have millions of believers, or more.
In an hour or two, I could probably come up with a couple hundred at least. Not just plebes, either...believers with money, weapons, control, authority, followers, and a lust to rule/dominate/"win."
And a giant stack of research---replicated and checked research---shows that truth, reality, evidence very often do the opposite of correction. The progeny is more likely to be deniers---or even fanatics.
The reality/correction may EVENTUALLY win out...but in the meantime, minds and lives in the millions or even billions are ruined, wasted, used and defrauded.

[aTOMiC]

Specifics make arguments. The article and this discussion could use some.

[Savor Dam]

Specifics make arguments. The article and this discussion could use some.

Specifics, yes. Arguments, not necessarily. This is the Loresraat, not another Watch forum familiar to all who have posted in this thread.

[Zarathustra]

We don't have to argue it. It was posted as, 'the most important thing you can read this year,' not 'here's an interesting article. ' I just don't buy the hype. Has anyone actually been harmed by fake porn pictures? Well, maybe porn lovers. But WWWIII isn't going to start with a fake Trump video. If his actual tweets haven't done it, fake news won't. I honestly don't think fake news is all that harmful, since so many already doubt it. These fears are driven by people who think this is how Trump won the election, because they are still in denial a year and a half later.

I'm sorry. This thread does belong in the Tank. If I can't address the content of the article without mentioning its political points, then just move it. It's silly to dance around the issues it raises just because it was posted in the wrong forum.

[wayfriend]

'Specific' what? The article had lots of specifics.

It reported specific incidents that have already occurred: the open comments for net neutrality flooded by bots using natural language algorithms, and the fake #releasethememo campaign, the plausible denials that real videos are faked and so not to be believed.

It reported specific software advancements that should make us more concerned in the future: synthetic pictures, synthetic video, AI-generated language that can generate "proof" that things that didn't happen happened, that things never said were said.

And there were specific comments from people who know more about it than I do that recommend concern.

There were specific examples of how bad it could get.

It was pretty specific.

This is not a political topic. This is a topic about preserving the sanctity of information which shapes world views. I am sure it pisses of disinformation artists, who's desire to discredit this must consume every fibre of their being. But it's in the correct forum.

Just because I didn't push the topic in a certain direction with my own view, but left it open ended, should not be off-putting to anyone. That's a valid way to start a discussion. The fact that it went from zero to attack the poster in 7 seconds is not a reflection of me.

What we could be discussing instead of why I am an alarmist is realistic ways of preserving the integrity of unfalsified information. Maybe with PKI validation and trusted source identification and things like that. Maybe someone else has ideas. Or maybe we're scared to discuss it with trolls around, I don't know.

[Avatar]

Nobody said you were alarmist, the article is. Hell, the guy even says in it, "alarmism can be good."

Do I worry about this type of thing? Not unduly. No matter what, some people are going to believe it as Vraith said. Some won't, some will wonder if it's true of not.

Are we calling into question the veracity of whatever we see and hear? Some are, some aren't.

Personally, I prefer this one: Everything Is Fucked and I'm Pretty Sure It's the Internet's Fault.



--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I wouldn't call it the *most* important thing but it is definitely a fascinating read. Haven't we already had the technology necessary to create a sufficiently-convincing yet fake news video for at least 10 years by now? Despite that, it hasn't happened.

To date, the whole "Russia influenced the election" topic still boils down to "a lot of people believed everything they read on Facebook", which isn't a Russia problem--it is a brain-dead end-user problem and a Facebook problem (the company gladly cashed the checks from the overseas users).

Which will happen first, though, the Singularity or Infoocalyspe? If the Singularity happens first, then we will all user our wetware interface to access information directly so Infoocalyspe can't occur. If Infoocalyspe happens first then the Singularity will nullify its effects. Unless, of course, the Infoocalyspe has caused WWIII, in which case I will be too busy keeping an eye out for raiders while the Mrs. loots the convenience store we found.

[Vraith]

Specifics make arguments.

No they don't. Hah!

Also [this additionally relates to what I said earlier--]
No they don't.
You can jump in that rabbit hole and follow the research.
If you want to win, it's far more important to have a firm grasp on the irrational/emotional levers of your audience/targets/prey than to have the best or most facts or evidence...confirmation bias is just the beginning. The evidence is massive.

OTOH, WHY would such a thing survive. Below are a couple quotes I have in my notepad, stuff I'm thinking about for something I'm working on...I don't recall where I first found them.


Humans biggest advantage over other species is our ability to cooperate. Cooperation is difficult to establish and almost as difficult to sustain. For any individual, freeloading is alwyas the best course of action. Reason developed not to enable us to solve abstract logical problems or even help us draw conclusions from unfamiliar data. Rather, it defeloped to resolve the problems posed by living in collaborative groups.

people with good information are valued. But expertise comes at a cost---it requires time and work. If you can get people to belive you're a good source without ACTUALLY being one, you get the benefits without having to do the work, spend the energy. Liars prosper....[[[snip]]]....motivated reasoning may have developed as a shield against manipulation. A tendency to stick with what they already believ to protect people from being taken in by every huckster with a convincing tale who comes along.

For desired conclusions, it is as if we ask CAN I believe this?
But for unpalatable conclusions, we ask MUST I believe this?. People come to some information seeking permission to believe, and to other information looking for escape routes.

ETA---sorry for all the typos and shit. Had to re-enter it by hand cuz of 406error, and I'm in a hurry and too lazy to fix.

[Fist and Faith]

Post of the decade, Vraith. As Paul Simon said: All lies and jest. Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.. Mother Theresa and the KKK use the same Bible to justify their actions.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

[wayfriend]

Oh, I agree that Everything is F***ed. For the reasons stated in there. (As alarmist as that may be ...)

But the problem is exponentially worse when you add disinformation to information. Disinformation is intentional and directed and malign. Disinformation says, if people are looking for information to confirm their beliefs, I'll provide it, even if I have to make it up to do so. Disinformation destroys civilization for the sake of a buck.

I don't know how to solve this problem. I'd like to see an internet where I can get news from a site that's rated for trustworthiness. I'd like to see news stories digitally signed so that we can verify they come from a trusted site. I'd like to see sites' ratings pulled when they publish something fake.

But then arises the problem of, who sits in judgement? And how would they judge? Like Scientology took over the Cult Hotline, how do we prevent the authority from being subverted?

I don't think there's an answer to that that will make anyone happy. It's authoritarian.

Maybe truth IS relative. And maybe we reached the logical conclusion of what that means. Delivered by the internet.

Which is now at the top of my list of things we invented and put to use before we thought about the consequences.

But dammit, things either happened or they didn't. How did we make it so hard?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Artemis Entreri once faced that problem. When you live in a world of liars--you can never tell who is lying, what they are lying about, and to what degree they are lying--your only option is to decide for yourself what the truth is then act accordingly. You must be prepared, though, to shift to a different truth if the one you chose before turns out not to be true.

News services rated for trustworthiness can be socially hacked--imagine a group of trolls giving a legitimate site the equivalent of "thumbs down" so much that the site becomes "untrustworthy". Digital signatures can be hacked or faked--difficult, but not impossible.

We made it hard because of the way in which we believe things. We make our beliefs part of our self-image so that when those beliefs are challenged we react as if *we* are being challenged. We take it personally. I was watching a Netflix documentary about "was the Moon landing faked?" last week and this "independent journalist" was actually *crying* because he was still so upset, after all these years, that the government could and would lie to us. That is completely irrational. (the Moon landing part, of course--we know for a fact that the government lies to us on a regular basis)

[Vraith]

we know for a fact that the government lies to us on a regular basis)

Not to dismiss the rest of your post, which I agree with almost entirely, possibly, but would need a shitload of dialogue/detail searching to be sure of on some points....

Still....

yea, the gov't lies to us regularly....no question...

BUT...

About the really big things...and/or things that impact your actual daily life..

They are MORE check-able, accountable, and truthful than those other things/groups/individuals/structures.
Sure, gov't is unethical, immoral, manipulative, authoritarian in part...
But lesser evil than MOST of the evils in most peoples lives.

At least they were, and can/could be...oh neverfuckingmind...not the 'tank, and I don't go there much anymore for good reasons, and I'm not gonna fuck up my own domain.

What I'd LIKE to see in the world research is something about this:

I am nearly positive that there is a psychological/social category of people that have a...HAH..."BIAS" for knowing and weighing differential information to LEARN and grow, not to confirm the already stance.
In a paper I wrote, I defined/named it "passionate disinterest." [I'm sure I've mentioned that paper numerous places before].
I'd probably call it something else now...though I don't know what.
I'm both rationally and non-rationally committed to what I am/think now...
But part of that ID is accepting the correction. '
I'm sure I fall short of it...but I'm convinced this "kind" of person DOES exist...and I'm not sure the research accounts for---even recognizes---those persons. [[or, very likely, nobody is that kind of person across all domains, which creates a lot of non-disentangleable muck]

[wayfriend]

A timely story: Science Has Confirmed How Fake News Spreads Faster Than Truth on Twitter

(Not surprising to me: intentionally faked rumours are designed to be salacious; reality is far less so.)

The internet has not given us unprecedented access to information. It's given us unprecedented access to "stuff". We were promised information, but there was nothing inherent in the system which ensured it was. For a while, honest brokers ruled the internet, and we saw no problems. Then, with success, the bad actors arrived.

The important thing in the OP article is not that there is false information pervading the internet, or that there are bad actors pursuing those ends. The important thing is how EASY it's becoming. Easy to make, easy to distribute, easy to absorb, easy to change social dynamics. Even if you took the time to verify what you heard, tried to be responsible for the groundedness of your own world view, you couldn't keep up if you tried.

As we know, when the scale of something changes, it becomes a different thing.

I am nearly positive that there is a psychological/social category of people that have a...HAH..."BIAS" for knowing and weighing differential information to LEARN and grow, not to confirm the already stance.
In a paper I wrote, I defined/named it "passionate disinterest." [I'm sure I've mentioned that paper numerous places before].
I'd probably call it something else now...though I don't know what.

Openmindedness?

Judiciousness?

I agree it's a trait, and that some people exhibit more of it than others.

But when you are deluged with information, from social not scholarly sources, can anyone keep up with the fair weighing of data?

[Fist and Faith]

The internet has most definitely given us unprecedented access to information. I can get information on any topic I can think of in minutes, if not seconds. Information I previously had to hope to find in a set of encyclopedias, if I was lucky enough to have a set, which, on many topics, would be out of date immediately. If I didn't have encyclopedias, I had to go to the library and look at theirs. If the topic I was after wasn't there, I had to look for a book on it, which was more out of date than the encyclopedias, and which my small town probably did not have anyway, so I'd order it and hope they could ever get their hands on it.

What year did the modern world Discovery Machu Picchu? How long does a blue whale live? How far away is the farthest thing the Hubble telescope had yet found?

The fact that there is as much or more garbage out there doesn't take away from the extraordinary access to actual information we now have.

[Cail]

Several problems:

- People are easily led.

- People look for "news" that agrees with their point of view.

- People are lazy.

- People have been trained to label dissenting beliefs as, "evil", or as some kind of, "-ist".

The fact that there's BS out there is nothing new. Propaganda is older than all of us. The difference is the speed with which it's spread, and the veneer of respectability that's glopped on it.

[Zarathustra]

Personally, I prefer this one: Everything Is Fucked and I'm Pretty Sure It's the Internet's Fault.



--A

I don't get it. From your article:

Everyone is pessimistic and fearful at the moment. Doesn't matter what country you're from or what side of the political spectrum you're on. To everybody, everywhere, it feels as though shit is hitting the fan.

No we're not! Consumer confidence is at record high. The stock market is off the charts. Unemployment is at record low. Businesses are starting to invest in America again.

Where does this guy get the authority to speak for everyone? He says this is true for both sides of the political spectrum, but he's obviously only speaking for his own side, the Trump haters (as he admits to being one). I don't think this is a sign of our times. It's a peek into the psychology of one particular kind of voter. We're in the Golden Age of humanity, and yet some are perpetually in doom and gloom mode. Their entire world view is devoted to crapping on everything good in the modern world. They wholehearted believe things like this:

The Internet is bad.
Robots will take our jobs.
AI will be the end of humanity
Fossil fuels are destroying the planet.
Capitalism sucks.
Wealth is something to view with suspicion.

Everything that is moving humanity forward must be shat upon. Why? I feel sorry for people like this. It must be a miserable life to live inside that headspace, to live at the best possible moment in human history and see nothing but pessimism and fear.

[Vraith]

I split some things to the tank. I participated in the needed moving blather. Kept some that maybe needed moving, moved some that maybe should have stayed. But I'm the fucking boss. Deal with it.
[[[heh...it's just there was some overlap and interpretation fluidity.]]].

kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=26105