Infopocalypse Now

[Zarathustra]

I will try to keep the politics out of it. It's difficult, however, when people are linking to articles that have political content. It sucks that we can't address the content.

[wayfriend]

It sucks that we can't address the content.

You can address the content all you want to. Just elsewhere. Why do you make up conspiracies like this and post it?

[Zarathustra]

I just meant that we can't address, in this thread, some of the content of articles linked in this thread. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy. It's just an unfortunate irony.

Honestly, I think the entire thread should be in the Tank. It's not really about technology, but an argument/position that we should be scared about something that technology is allegedly making possible. As the author in the OP article says, he's an alarmist. It's no different from global warming threads.

[Vraith]

, I think the entire thread should be in the Tank.
It's no different from global warming threads.

Considered that. Especially since I'm as guilty as anyone of blurring/crossing in this thread. And I might do it at another point [barring thread death or in-vein discussion].

But I THINK there is a difference.
CAN this kind of tech change minds/people/etc. is different from
WTF can/should we do about it, when and why?
It's, tech-wise, not different than the AI threads.
But the AI threads will also become a blur-point soonish.
the whole reason GW isn't here [though attempts have been made] is cuz the tank-i-tics takes over.

You are still just flat out deluded on GW, BTW.

[wayfriend]

Thank you.

Arguing about which conspiracy is really true or really false is politics, but it is not the subject of this discussion. The subject is about how technology without restriction is causing confusion about what is real.

[Cail]

The subject is about how technology without restriction is causing confusion about what is real.

Though you and I would probably disagree over what is and isn't "real", this is an interesting takeaway from the article.

Do you think that technology and communication need to be restricted? Do you think there's an impartial way of doing so?

Though I think I see what you're proposing in your quote above - the creation of a Matrix-like scenario where facts and reality are indistinguishable from lies and fantasy - I have to wonder how you put this particular genie back in the bottle.

I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I'm not aware of any good outcome ever that's a result of the government regulating the content of communication. So using that as a baseline, I don't see anything that's to be done. Especially with unfettered access to the internet, and the ability to tank stock markets based on lies and innuendo. The notion of any sort of ratings system is a non-starter, given how easy it is to manipulate ratings.

IIRC, you work in IT, so you may have a very different perspective on this, which I'm curious to hear.

[Zarathustra]

[Quote ="vraith"]


You are still just flat out deluded on GW, BTW. [/quote] seriously, how am I not supposed to respond to that? What am I wrong about?

WF, your description of what this thread is about belies the content of the article you posted. The article doesn't say that technology blurs reality, but bad actors using technology. And that's a conspiracy theory, not an analysis of technology.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The subject is about how technology without restriction is causing confusion about what is real.

This could make a really good Black Mirror episode.

[Zarathustra]

The author says we were 'totally screwed a year and a half ago' by a 'misinformation campaign. ' How were we screwed and what was the misinformation? How are we supposed to take his alarmism of the future seriously when his alarmism of the past is just silly sour grapes about the election? No credibility.

[Cail]

The subject is about how technology without restriction is causing confusion about what is real.

This could make a really good Black Mirror episode.

Or a movie called The Matrix.

[Zarathustra]

Yet another article making the same points.

"I think the nightmare situation is a fake video of a politician saying, 'I have launched nuclear weapons against a country.' The other country reacts within minutes, seconds, and we have a global nuclear war," Farid said.

How can people be this dumb? Does he actually think that this is how nuclear war happens? Is he not aware of the global monitoring systems in place to detect missile launches? No one is going to launch nuclear missiles without checking first to see if any have been launched.

Once everyone knows that it's possible to fake video/audio, the power to mislead will be undermined. Everyone will know to be suspicious when a government leader suddenly says something out of character or something implausible like, "I have launched nuclear missiles against country x."

Besides:

His lab is developing tools to quickly identify fakes.

[Skyweir]

Mmm.. quite right

[Hashi Lebwohl]

How can people be this dumb? Does he actually think that this is how nuclear war happens? Is he not aware of the global monitoring systems in place to detect missile launches? No one is going to launch nuclear missiles without checking first to see if any have been launched.

Too many bad Hollywood movies over the years. Some people think that there really is a red button in the desk in the Oval Office that the President can use to immediately launch a nuclear missile.

Computer hacking has been mishandled in much the same way. The average person thinks a hacker can sit down, punch in a few lines of code, and hack a computer in 30 seconds or a corporate server in only a few minutes.

[wayfriend]

First of all, the name of the game is saturation and percentages. Maybe someone can spot a fake, but if only 10% of 10,000,000 people believe it then it succeeded to impact perceptions. We can all think of examples of fake news that worked although it was known to many to to be fake, whether you choose Seth Rich or Comet Ping Pong Pizza or global warming as your example. This will only get better as the fakes become better.

Furthermore, inherit bias often prevents people from spreading news about a story being fake, even if they are not themselves pushing the fake story knowing it is fake. So you cannot rely on fact-based evidence about fake information reaching the people it needs to reach.

Lastly, we can all imagine how a faked photo or video can cause an international incident due to hot heads acting on the information before it is verified. It need not be a world leader, it only need to be a crowd of violent demonstrators. If you think the author's atomic launch example had holes in it, so what? It's just an illustration of a point. It doesn't make the basis of the point invalid. (Anyway, while the U.S. isn't about to launch missiles because of a fake video, are you so sure you can say the same about Kim Jong Un?) I mean, a man just got shot dead because of a fake police call. Circumstances can change a mistake into something deadly.

[Skyweir]

You are dead right Wayfriend

And, not exactly on point.... but it wasnt that long ago that someone fumbled a security exercise in Hawaii that saw authorities and the public react to what they believed was an imminent nuclear threat. Yes not the same template as what youre referring to .. but things that are fake have seemed very real and was not identified straight away as a faux pais.

To my mind nothing is secure, nothing infallible .. nothing beyond the reach of ill doers with malicious intent.

[Avatar]

Which should make us all healthily sceptical...

--A

[wayfriend]

The Hawaii episode is another case in point. Our emergency response apparatus rests on the foundation of issuing a warning - which is heeded. If people begin to distrust or at least disbelieve the warnings, that's deaths.

And these warnings are not inherently fake-proof. All it takes is a few fake warnings and people will begin to disbelieve the real one when it comes.

[Fist and Faith]

The panic may not have been as crazy as we've heard, but there was panic because of Orson Wells' broadcast. Also, people called the US Navy, angry that nothing was being done about Americans stranded on a deserted island after watching Gilligan's Island. Google says there have been newspaper articles that caused panic (beasts escaped the zoo??). There's no reason to expect this kind of thing won't continue to happen in the medium of the internet. And, since the internet is bigger and faster than any other medium, it will happen more. I can't imagine how it could be prevented, considering disclaimers at the end of newspaper articles were ignored, and a sitcom is taken to be documentary.

[wayfriend]

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?

[Skyweir]

Does distinguishing among examples make a difference Please note she is my question mark

I mean youve all demonstrated that scams can and will happen .. and generally speaking people arent prone to fact checking.

Scams and the point of the article is infocalypse, is that seriously misleading fake information is an issue. They have the potential to destabilise and polarise populations depending on the issue.

It can enter like propaganda, or advertising to promote particular products or ideas, it can present misinformation and engender bias, discrimination and hate, I believe it could be used to disturb the peace, or progress any agenda. Social media is used as a platform to disseminate misinformation, including controlling what commercial, political or social issues coverage we are individually exposed to.

It does this through market and profile analysis .. worst case scenario its quite insidious. As has already been raised, we are not particularly discriminating in our sorting through the information we receive critically. I think it is definitely a concern.