The Information War

[vi edit]

Heh. Yeah the key thing for me isn't so much that I want an article to be flagged as "true" or "fake" or "potentially" fake. As that leans far too much to individual perception and will always be contested. I'm more interested in coming up with a reliable way to authenticate the origination of an article, where it came from, and where all it was reposted to. That gives the analytics junkies tons of data to chew over and distribute. You can then draw your own conclusions based upon what channels it was distributed through.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I agree that coming across as non-partisan makes it more likely that people across the spectrum will listen and take you seriously. It's a real dilemma though when trying to come across as non-partisan involves misleading your readers. The passage which concerns me is this:



This language gives the inaccurate impression that this phenomenon is rather even across the spectrum. Look, you have this right wing nutty website, and over here is a left wing nutty site. Sounds kind of like it has nothing to do with right vs. left. But it does have to do with it. A lot to do with it. Just look at the laundry list of positions the article describes as "anti-globalist" in that last sentence: anti-media, anti-immigration, anti-science, anti-US government, anti-EU. Come ON. Every last one of those is common on the right and uncommon to virtually non-existent on the left.

If you're going to ascribe to 'sides' here though, aka tribalism, the degree at which one side is doing it vs another is moot, it really is just as bad no matter the quantity. Now if you ascribe less to tribalism and more to single-actors with an agenda, now it becomes a little more clear that this really is non-partisan, it's just someone pushing an agenda. Sometimes those people are aligned with certain parts of certain political parties (and thus glom on to them like a leech) but it's really just shitty people being shitty. No need to drag 50% of the population through the mud for that one, call the individuals to task (if you can find 'em).

 

[momeNt]

I'm just free floating ideas here...but say there was some sort of data registry where "news" was submitted and assigned a unique digital ID. You could relate it to other other ID's like a hashtag does but the important thing is that that digital source had some unique ID tied to the submitter and was also visible in parts of the article. Any time the article was reposted/tweeted/ect it would be reported to the registry and you could see where it started, who posted it first and then see all of the ways it was shared or submitted.

Obviously any sort of authentication is vulnerable to hacking/manipulation and it's a raw spitballing of an idea. But it's a way to attempt and figure out where some news started and where all it was spun. I don't know if I want to get into the business of credibility, rather transparency in where a source was started and where all it went.

I believe this is something similar that wikileaks was using to verify the credibility of their leaks. Assange has not signed a message with his private key in a long while though which leads people to believe that the site has been compromised. I think this more has to do with credibility / consistency of the source, and not the information itself though. They are loosely tied together, a source must first establish credibility, and then they use that reputation to disseminate information. Right now information is being spread without any credibility, which is part of the problem.

https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/59515c/using_private_pgp/

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5n58sm/i_am_julian_assange_founder_of_wikileaks_ask_me/

Read top comment to both. I think it explains how or why it is important? I don't know anything about it to be honest.

 

[woolfe9998]

If you're going to ascribe to 'sides' here though, aka tribalism, the degree at which one side is doing it vs another is moot, it really is just as bad no matter the quantity. Now if you ascribe less to tribalism and more to single-actors with an agenda, now it becomes a little more clear that this really is non-partisan, it's just someone pushing an agenda. Sometimes those people are aligned with certain parts of certain political parties (and thus glom on to them like a leech) but it's really just shitty people being shitty. No need to drag 50% of the population through the mud for that one, call the individuals to task (if you can find 'em).

I can't agree with the first part of this, where you say that if we conceive this as tribal, it doesn't matter which side is doing it more because I think it does us no good to pretend that something is "even" when it isn't. You cannot address problems by refusing to acknowledge where the bulk of the problem lies. The fact that right and left are not even when it comes to both spreading and accepting false information is not an arbitrary or random difference. There are reasons for it, reasons which have to do with different cultures and mindsets as between these two camps. By pretending it's even, we aren't penetrating very deeply into why it's been happening to the extent that it has.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I can't agree with the first part of this, where you say that if we conceive this as tribal, it doesn't matter which side is doing it more because I think it does us no good to pretend that something is "even" when it isn't. You cannot address problems by refusing to acknowledge where the bulk of the problem lies. The fact that right and left are not even when it comes to both spreading and accepting false information is not an arbitrary or random difference. There are reasons for it, reasons which have to do with different cultures and mindsets as between these two camps. By pretending it's even, we aren't penetrating very deeply into why it's been happening to the extent that it has.

So you feel that one side can be considered justified in spreading misinformation, as long as they're doing it less than the other? Or can they just both be wrong, and neither side be considered 'worse'.

EDIT: This is how we got into our current situation, where one side tries very hard to seem juuuust a little less corrupt to their focus groups than their opponent. Each side is miserable sleezeballs, but at least they're not as bad as the sleezeballs from the other camp.

 

[blankslate]

My personal opinion is the reduction in the number of junior-high and high schoosl teaching critical thinking classes contributes to this problem.

Much like (again imho) the lack of civics classes today compared to a few decades ago leads to many people unaware of how politics plays out and unable to name and describe the branches of government off of the top of their heads.

Now it seems that those two problems have become intertwined.


____________

 

[woolfe9998]

So you feel that one side can be considered justified in spreading misinformation, as long as they're doing it less than the other? Or can they just both be wrong, and neither side be considered 'worse'.

I don't know where you get that I feel one side is "justified" spreading misinformation. It's impossible to interpret anything I wrote in that manner. You'd have to alter my words entirely. Let me be clear: misinformation, either spreading it or believing in it without critical thought, is a massive problem that is never, ever justified.

I'm not sure you understood my prior post. It matters that it happens a lot more on one side than the other not because of a blame game, not because I want say, we're better than you, but because we need to understand why this phenomenon is occurring, and in order to do so, we need to understand the nature and character of those who are participating in it, both those who are spreaders of misinformation and those who are overly credulous to it. Liberals and conservatives are different groups, not just in their policy stances but in their overall world view and culture. If it happens a lot more in one than the other, we need to understand why. I don't see how pretending it's even gets us any closer to understanding the why part.

 

[ivwshane]

Umm ouch. Care to elaborate? Or was that just a drive-by.

Nope, just commentary on your overall posting history.

 

[vi edit]

My personal opinion is the reduction in the number of junior-high and high schoosl teaching critical thinking classes contributes to this problem.

Much like (again imho) the lack of civics classes today compared to a few decades ago leads to many people unaware of how politics plays out and unable to name and describe the branches of government off of the top of their heads.

Now it seems that those two problems have become intertwined.


____________

It's more complicated than that. 30 years ago if I wanted to look up the history of Russia I went to the bookshelf on the library and pulled out some dusty old encyclopedia. I didn't question what I read. I assumed it was unbiased and factual because that is what I learned. Pages couldn't get manipulated. I could go look at any other school's library and read the same exact encyclopedia and get the same exact answer.

Now if I want to look something up, you google that shit and are fed a billion different streams of results varying from unbiased and factual to completely fabricated bullshit to something in between that some revisionist theory that slightly alters the facts. We have so much more information thrown at us now vs what we did then. So many more sources and so many more agendas than before.

 

[blankslate]

It's more complicated than that. 30 years ago if I wanted to look up the history of Russia I went to the bookshelf on the library and pulled out some dusty old encyclopedia. I didn't question what I read. I assumed it was unbiased and factual because that is what I learned. Pages couldn't get manipulated. I could go look at any other school's library and read the same exact encyclopedia and get the same exact answer.

True enough.
I do think that critical thinking skill and to a lesser extent civics classes would mitigate that fact to some degree.
Like thinking "well this is a blog so I'll have to find other sources to confirm what they say" then looking at a news site like bbc.com/news or the Associated Press and thinking "well this site is more trustworthy so while I'll want to confirm it still... I'll look for confirmation on what the blog said first"

______________

 

[WelshBloke]

Some of the left (mainly far left) remain anti-globalist, but that is mostly an opposition to free trade. How often do we see people on the left supporting something like Brexit?

Well the leader of the British Labour party (the official opposition party in the UK) is clearly in favour of Brexit even if he's been careful not to publicly espouse such views.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

It matters that it happens a lot more on one side than the other not because of a blame game, not because I want say, we're better than you, but because we need to understand why this phenomenon is occurring, and in order to do so, we need to understand the nature and character of those who are participating in it, both those who are spreaders of misinformation and those who are overly credulous to it.

I was being purposely obtuse to try to bring this out, to ensure that you did indeed have the mindset I thought (even if I disagree with other parts of your statement). Namely that there are *individuals* to blame here, not one camp or another. Yes, more of those individuals might align themselves with a given tribe, but you have to be surprisingly delicate when calling out a sub-group within a group, as you can very very quickly rile up the members of that group. As another obtuse example, nobody defends a child molester, or those who defend them, but if you say that the church defends child molesters, people come out of the woodwork because you attacked their 'tribe'.

Punching through the issues and groups and tribes and all the other garbage that we as humans use to segregate and divide and categorize is very important, because that is how things actually get changed. Otherwise it devolves into the same old mudslinging and infighting that got us here to begin with.

 

[cytg111]

Authentication. A nation wide or even global wide registry that you can apply for an ID to be tied to your citizenship.
Something akin to cetificate authorities for the internet, just for people. Authors sign their articles with this certificate and can thus be verified against the certificate authority for validity and NOT a bot. You can imagine different layouts of this plan, hierarchies, top level certs etc.
Demand that news outlets and socialmedia vets the signatures.
Case Closed on Fake News.

 

[momeNt]

Authentication. A nation wide or even global wide registry that you can apply for an ID to be tied to your citizenship.
Something akin to cetificate authorities for the internet, just for people. Authors sign their articles with this certificate and can thus be verified against the certificate authority for validity and NOT a bot. You can imagine different layouts of this plan, hierarchies, top level certs etc.
Demand that news outlets and socialmedia vets the signatures.
Case Closed on Fake News.

Problem is the most popular of media sources will probably ALSO be the one where the ability to post content is the most open - like facebook or twitter. So, unless you are also a proponent of state run media and forcing open sources of content creation more underground, I don't see how that gets off the ground.

 

[ivwshane]

Interesting...you guys seem to think the issue is with people unable to verify the source of the information they are reading.

 

[cytg111]

Problem is the most popular of media sources will probably ALSO be the one where the ability to post content is the most open - like facebook or twitter. So, unless you are also a proponent of state run media and forcing open sources of content creation more underground, I don't see how that gets off the ground.

I disagree. Putting forth regulations for media is allready a thing, post certian things and win stupid prices.

 

[momeNt]

Interesting...you guys seem to think the issue is with people unable to verify the source of the information they are reading.

I finally read the article in question.

It seems to me more that there are certain people that are suspicious of the government or large organizations to begin with, and that these fake news outlets feed into that suspicions. Crisis actors, 9/11 was an inside job, etc. So it is actually these sites and the botnets that circulate their information on twitter that are feeding this group of people. I don't believe that they took information from two sources and failed to believe the correct one, they latched onto information that confirmed their bias in the first place.

 

[hal2kilo]

What we really need is some automatic fact checking site. Back in the day we used to have the Fairness Doctrine, not sure that was effective. But some Internet version of that would be quite useful. It would have to be beyond reproach.

Yet another thing the cons were desperate for years to get rid of. Look what it has become.

 

[hal2kilo]

My personal opinion is the reduction in the number of junior-high and high schoosl teaching critical thinking classes contributes to this problem.

Much like (again imho) the lack of civics classes today compared to a few decades ago leads to many people unaware of how politics plays out and unable to name and describe the branches of government off of the top of their heads.

Now it seems that those two problems have become intertwined.


____________

You could not graduate from high school in my day without the required social studies and government classes. I have no idea what they teach in school anymore.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Interesting...you guys seem to think the issue is with people unable to verify the source of the information they are reading.

It's two fold, I think. Part of it is the inability to trace back where information is coming from (the 'they say' factor), the other part is when you CAN trace back the information, but it's simply false, knowingly false. Not even 'conspiracy theory' nutjob false, but knowingly, utterly false, like stating the sky is red. When we become completely inundated, drowned by it, you cannot falsify it fast enough to make educated responses/opinions to what's going on in the world.

I finally read the article in question.

It seems to me more that there are certain people that are suspicious of the government or large organizations to begin with, and that these fake news outlets feed into that suspicions. Crisis actors, 9/11 was an inside job, etc. So it is actually these sites and the botnets that circulate their information on twitter that are feeding this group of people. I don't believe that they took information from two sources and failed to believe the correct one, they latched onto information that confirmed their bias in the first place.

This exactly, it starts with 'nutty' things being circulated, until it starts to shift more in to 'well, that politician actually never said that, they said this'. Then there's just as many articles stating they said each thing. What happens when people figure out they can start editing video/audio to reflect what they *want* that person to have said? Then you can actually have two accounts of history, with no way to truly verify it aside from people who witnessed it firsthand (which also cannot be verified).

Expand this to every facet of our information systems and things get squirrely real fast.

 

[woolfe9998]

I was being purposely obtuse to try to bring this out, to ensure that you did indeed have the mindset I thought (even if I disagree with other parts of your statement). Namely that there are *individuals* to blame here, not one camp or another. Yes, more of those individuals might align themselves with a given tribe, but you have to be surprisingly delicate when calling out a sub-group within a group, as you can very very quickly rile up the members of that group. As another obtuse example, nobody defends a child molester, or those who defend them, but if you say that the church defends child molesters, people come out of the woodwork because you attacked their 'tribe'.

Punching through the issues and groups and tribes and all the other garbage that we as humans use to segregate and divide and categorize is very important, because that is how things actually get changed. Otherwise it devolves into the same old mudslinging and infighting that got us here to begin with.

Yet the author of your article is doing exactly that, classifying it as affecting one ideological group more than another: specifically, anti-globalists versus globalists. This distinction somehow seems less controversial than left versus right, so people aren't as likely to get their backs up over it. But in principle it is exactly the same thing. Saying it is "certain individuals" without discussing any sort of group identification makes it very difficult to understand the phenomenon properly. Of course it's certain individuals. The question is, do these individuals share things in common that make it more likely for them to propagate or believe these lies.

Like I said before, I agree that expressing it as a groupthink phenomena for certain sub-cultures is likely to turn off those who are part of the group being called out. It's a real dilemma, trying to stick to the truth without offending one group or the other. Your author errs on the side of diplomacy over accuracy. That passage I cited is bizarre if you just look at the first sentence and compare it to the last. It's isn't about left versus right, but those who believe this nonsense have the following 6 beliefs (insert list of 6 typically conservative beliefs.) The passage is self-contradictory. I guess it's up to you to decide how to balance being diplomatic with being accurate.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Yet the author of your article is doing exactly that, classifying it as affecting one ideological group more than another: specifically, anti-globalists versus globalists. This distinction somehow seems less controversial than left versus right, so people aren't as likely to get their backs up over it. But in principle it is exactly the same thing. Saying it is "certain individuals" without discussing any sort of group identification makes it very difficult to understand the phenomenon properly. Of course it's certain individuals. The question is, do these individuals share things in common that make it more likely for them to propagate or believe these lies.

Like I said before, I agree that expressing it as a groupthink phenomena for certain sub-cultures is likely to turn off those who are in sub-culture being called out. It's a real dilemma, trying to stick to the truth without offending one group or the other. Your author errs on the side of diplomacy over accuracy. That passage I cited is bizarre if you just look at the first sentence and compare it to the last. It's isn't about left versus right, but those who believe this nonsense have the following 6 beliefs (insert list of 6 typically conservative beliefs.) The passage is self-contradictory. I guess it's up to you to decide how to balance being diplomatic with being accurate.

Fair enough, and a reader may (probably accurately) infer that he is indeed pointing to conservatives. If the shoe fits as they say. But if his wording draws more willing minds than it would have by making it a left vs right thing, mission accomplished.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hehe, what a fascinating thread in my view

. In reading the posts there was much I wanted to say along the way to individual posts, but in trying to summarize in my own head while doing so what I was seeing I realized that the issue for me is all about having opinions and that made me think of a Zen story that I associate with deep understanding of that issue. Well when I went to right that story down, I realized that I didn't really have the words down pat to tell that story so I went to look it up on the web and lo and behold I got a google link that read:

"
Zen masters say "Don't seek the truth - just drop your opinions
www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zen/sayings.htm Proxy Highlight

Zen Sayings ... The famous saying of Ch'ing-yüan Wei-hsin (Seigen Ishin): ... For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again ...:

------------

Here is the story or quote I was looking for:

Mountains are Mountains

The famous saying of Ch'ing-yüan Wei-hsin (Seigen Ishin):

老僧三十年前未參禪時、見山是山、見水是水、及至後夾親見知識、有箇入處、見山不是山、見水不是水、而今得箇體歇處、依然見山秪是山、見水秪是水 (The Way of Zen 220 k)

"Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters. 13

13 Ch'uan Teng Lu, 22. (The Way of Zen 126)"

I had these thoughts because the search for reliable information, is just a subset of seeking truth and validating it to others. I went on that search long ago. I wanted to find God and meaning, to be able to prove that life is good and the value of morality. I wanted to prove my assumptions were right, a search that for reasons of something perverse in my merciless sense of honesty completely failed. The simple mountains that I knew in my youth, by simple presence and being, were washed away by a hunger for certainty. I lost my simple being in a state of duality and complexity and need. Maybe it was Occam's Razor that slashed my tires, but my journey ended in hopelessness and failure. I couldn't prove or substantiate a single one of my sacred beliefs and they all went poof and disappeared in a sea of black depression and misery. I died. I simply let go and gave up, totally defeated It was only there in total failure and loss and surrender that something awakened in me. I am and my being needs nothing to be. Mountains are mountains and everything is very simple. I nave no need to know anything. I have no opinions that matter. There is nowhere to go, nothing to become, nothing to learn or to see, but I live in a sea of people who know things or rather cling to them believing they natter.

Misinformation is a disaster if you need certainty, if you still cling to meaning, if you don't know that nobody knows anything.

The mind seeking answers is a cat chasing its tail.

 

[agent00f]

Yet the author of your article is doing exactly that, classifying it as affecting one ideological group more than another: specifically, anti-globalists versus globalists. This distinction somehow seems less controversial than left versus right, so people aren't as likely to get their backs up over it. But in principle it is exactly the same thing. Saying it is "certain individuals" without discussing any sort of group identification makes it very difficult to understand the phenomenon properly. Of course it's certain individuals. The question is, do these individuals share things in common that make it more likely for them to propagate or believe these lies.

Like I said before, I agree that expressing it as a groupthink phenomena for certain sub-cultures is likely to turn off those who are part of the group being called out. It's a real dilemma, trying to stick to the truth without offending one group or the other. Your author errs on the side of diplomacy over accuracy. That passage I cited is bizarre if you just look at the first sentence and compare it to the last. It's isn't about left versus right, but those who believe this nonsense have the following 6 beliefs (insert list of 6 typically conservative beliefs.) The passage is self-contradictory. I guess it's up to you to decide how to balance being diplomatic with being accurate.

It really is about left/liberalism vs right/conservatism given the inherent contrasting nature of the mindsets.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm a firm believer that twitter and facebook and global instantaneous communication is not the social environment that us humans were designed for. It will only lead to problems. And I'm a person who grew up on the internet, which ultimately may make me more discerning about the information that I receive from it.

I don't wish to get between you and ivwshane in your back and forth here but to suggest for your considerations that one of the greatest obstacles a lack of objective introspection about problems one may have is the assumption that one is free of such problems. One doesn't tend to focus on things one doesn't think are there.