Speech must be regulated. Be that by law or otherwise, you cannot have totally unrestricted speech. That is simply utter, self-destructive, almost psychopathic madness.
The article is best read in its entirety.
When I checked Google, the first result – given special prominence in a box at the top of the page – informed me that the first black president was a man called John Hanson in 1781. Apparently, the US has had seven black presidents, including Thomas Jefferson and Dwight Eisenhower. Other search engines do little better. The top results on Yahoo and Bing pointed me to articles about Hanson as well. Welcome to the world of “alternative facts”.
In some ways, it’s a challenge that trumps all others. Without a common starting point – a set of facts that people with otherwise different viewpoints can agree on – it will be hard to address any of the problems that the world now faces.
Working out who to trust and who not to believe has been a facet of human life since our ancestors began living in complex societies. Politics has always bred those who will mislead to get ahead. But the difference today is how we get our information. “The internet has made it possible for many voices to be heard that could not make it through the bottleneck that controlled what would be distributed before,” says Paul Resnick, professor of information at the University of Michigan.
[And of course part of that information is truth suppressed by authorities for various reasons, some of them even halfway decent. Some of it is truth that is not suppressed but simply not widely disseminated through mainstream channels. But a very great portion is not truth at all : it is outright lies, bullshit, and claims about how untrustworthy the mainstream is and how you should only believe this one lunatic who can see the future by shaking a monkey's testicles or something.]
We need a new way to decide what is trustworthy. “I think it is going to be not figuring out what to believe but who to believe,” says Resnick. “It is going to come down to the reputations of the sources of the information. They don’t have to be the ones we had in the past.”
We’re seeing that shift already. The UK’s Daily Mail newspaper has been a trusted source of news for many people for decades. But last month editors of Wikipedia voted to stop using the Daily Mail as a source for information on the basis that it was “generally unreliable”.
“The major new challenge in reporting news is the new shape of truth,” says Kevin Kelly, a technology author and co-founder of Wired magazine. “Truth is no longer dictated by authorities, but is networked by peers. For every fact there is a counterfact. All those counterfacts and facts look identical online, which is confusing to most people.”
“For the rumours we looked at, the number of followers of people who tweeted the rumour was much larger than the number of followers of those who corrected it,” he says. “The audiences were also largely disjointed. Even when a correction reached a lot of people and a rumour reached a lot of people, they were usually not the same people. The problem is, corrections do not spread very well.”
“We got a lot of feedback that people did not want to be told what was true or not,” he says. “At the heart of what they want, was actually the ability to see all sides and make the decision for themselves. A major issue most people face without knowing it is the bubble they live in. If they were shown views outside that bubble they would be much more open to talking about them.”
“By suggesting things to people that are outside their comfort zone but not so far outside they would never look at it you can keep people from self-radicalising in these bubbles,” says Lewandowsky. “That sort of technological solution is one good way forward. I think we have to work on that.”
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170301-lies-propaganda-and-fake-news-a-grand-challenge-of-our-age
Sister blog of Physicists of the Caribbean in which I babble about non-astronomy stuff, because everyone needs a hobby
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Whose cloud is it anyway ?
I really don't understand the most militant climate activists who are also opposed to geoengineering . Or rather, I think I understand t...
-
"To claim that you are being discriminated against because you have lost your right to discriminate against others shows a gross lack o...
-
For all that I know the Universe is under no obligation to make intuitive sense, I still don't like quantum mechanics. Just because some...
-
Hmmm. [The comments below include a prime example of someone claiming they're interested in truth but just want higher standard, where...
The article says Daily Mail has been a trusted source of news for many people for decades. Is Daily Mail still a trusted source of news, by your lights?
ReplyDeleteCertainly not by me since I was old enough to actually understand the news, but it is widely trusted among a large element of the populace, to my dismay.
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor Why would anyone trust Daily Mail, knowing, as do all intelligent people, that it's not built as some sort of Truth Engine, but as a rumour-peddler and scandalmonger? When Sir Elton went after Daily Mail, I remember that one pretty well, he collected £100,000 damages - that's just a cost of doing business for Viscount Rothermere and his platoon of scumbags. The market cap for DMGT is £ 2,265.82 million.
ReplyDeleteFake News sells. It sells well. And nobody's going to stop it, even with massive libel suits. Lord Rothermere and Dacre have a business model. Not even politicians can stop Daily Mail from printing their lies. Cameron tried to get Dacre sacked for printing all that pro-Brexit nonsense, nothing doing.
Never believe only one account of any story. We expect responsible journalists to multiply source their claims. Goes the other way, too. We're responsible for sorting out these stories and not merely hugging our knees and only reading those stories which confirm our biases.