Will fake news be more of a problem with SAFE or less?

This is so true and accepted historical accounts rely on it; unfortunately we need to take action, or at least form an opinion, on most issues well before the filtering of time takes place.

2 Likes

I agree with you. Your original statement of allowing the passage of time to somehow distill truth from fiction was incorrect, at least it seems obvious to those of us who have been “drinking the cool-aid”, as you so denigratingly put it.

But the internet is now providing a path for seekers of truth to try to untangle the events that occur in our world. Hopefully that is beginning to make your statement more true, and that time … coupled with the ability of people to easily discuss and debate, that the internet and soon SAFE will provide us, will allow truth to be distilled from fiction.

That’s back to front… jumping to a conclusion before rigorous consideration, is foolish.
Those bores who right history to their liking, might fancy that they are in control of what other people think but that’s their error… the rest of us just suffer them!.. we’re going round in circles here. We need safe to create a disjoint in the way that conservatives impose themselves.

You agree with me. You suggest my original statement “of allowing the passage of time to somehow distill truth from fiction”, was incorrect.

Then your second paragraph maintains the same as I way suggesting there. Perhaps you misread it … time is a powerful medicine for alsorts of confusion.

Rigorous consideration is great, that’s what should take place, but how many people actually do that in practice? Not many, in my experience. Maybe mine is not typical but I see bias and laziness being at the center of most people’s belief systems. I guess SAFE won’t change that any, nor should it.

1 Like

People are lazy but you shouldn’t mistake that. Give them opportunity - give them a tool and they will make use of it. With a safe environment, we should fairly expect the quality of debate to rise.

You’re right that we should not expect the normal to necessarily do anything - that is the route conservatives like to maintain.

1 Like

Let me spell it out in less flowery language for you.

You were wrong. History has been forced down our throat by men who lied in many cases. The truth occasionally comes out to the general public 20 or 30 or 100 or 200 years later, but that’s too late to matter to anybody.

Because of the internet, I am hopeful that your statement will no longer be wrong. The internet has allowed us access to the revelations of wikileaks, snowden, podesta emails, DNC emails, etc., None of these would have come to light in a pre-internet world.

1 Like

or you misinterpreted it. Principal of charity.

I wasn’t talking of the past… that’s a place we leave conservatives to rot.

What is true in the future, need not necessarily have been the case in the past… despite some wishing that were so.

You seem like a pretty angry guy. I am sorry you find conservative principals of small government, live and let live, importance of family, and in many cases, importance of spirituality, to be so repugnant and distasteful.

Maybe someday you’ll understand that the world will not necessarily be better if those values are left in the past to rot.

1 Like

The reading of leaks is, at best, interesting. To have your entire opinion based on them though is a little sketchy, mostly because they represent truth as coming from a solitary viewpoint. Too often people substitute the perusal of leaks and “talking points” for “rigorous consideration”.

If somebody has “talking points”, they are not considering, they are promoting an already considered opinion. Humans being as they are, doubtless there are many who perhaps should have considered longer before coming to and promoting that opinion.

I would say a tool and a fair amount of education. Most people around us don’t give a damn for these problems. As long as the consumer goods keep flowing from the credit card, and the fiction series from the web faucet, all I see is satisfaction on people’s faces. Many even feel guilty when you propose them to imagine they deserve truth and privacy…

1 Like

hmm… how very patronizing… another quality you forgot to list.

“conservative principals” is a confusion and liable too much to personal interpretation, just like religion. Better to consider the simpler form of what is conservative == averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values… or favouring socially conservative ideas, which tends to a selfish outlook. It’s too easy to see the flipside of each of the values you list ‘live and let live’ becomes exploitation etc.

You seem like a pretty angry guy.

Not at all. Conservatives I wonder think the world is set against them… hence their inclination to being defensive and liking tradition… fear of change what what.

Yes - information is education and clear sight of that, is all part of the package.

1 Like

Here actually, is the root of the conservative vs liberal culture war.

Individualism vs Collectivism.

Do we protect the rights of the individual or do we protect the collective? A lot of men way smarter than you have wrestled with these questions, and I have no hope of ever changing your mind.

Do I protect the collective, and take from individuals as necessary to do that? This is socialism/communism and we have a lot of historical evidence that it leads to death at massive scale. But even if that were not true, it seems very likely it would degrade to a 1984 type of world. Since we do not enjoy infinite resources here on earth, and since governments tend to over extend themselves, the ability of government to always demand more from the individual “for the good of the collective” leads to a dark place.

Do I protect the individual and hope that the collective, which is indeed, made up of individuals, manages to do OK? This can lead to it’s own miseries, with large wealth disparities allowing some to live in luxury while others go hungry.

I choose to protect the individual, not the collective. You have called that “selfish”. I believe it is the correct course for society. You do not.

I would suggest to you that neither of our philosophies takes us exactly where we want to go. I don’t want people starving on the street, and you don’t want (I assume) to live in the book 1984 or die of starvation. You should not seek the extermination of my kind, as I am the yin to your yang. It is the tension between our philosophies that may allow society to progress through a middle way.

1 Like

urgh, ad hominem to start… how dull. The rest isn’t worth replying to. Learn some manners.

1 Like

Seriously? You’re lecturing me on manners? It was your reprehensible manners that have forced me to respond at all. If you had been less antagonizing and angry (dude, you seriously are an angry guy), we both could have gotten some work done this morning.

1 Like

@VaCrunch

The most important thing with media and the
preoccupation of 75% of good law is to get the conflicts of interest out. That means it can’t be sponsored or for profit or even owned. It needs to be member controlled with open proportionate membership and complete transparency. In the end it probably comes down to solid AI enhanced search with these qualifications with a decentralized automated collective behind it made of its readership who will themselves be the primary contributors. The opensource community does this type of thing already for instance how did it build so much that states and big corps would like to scuttle, even by injecting noise into code.
Also the same kinds of end user experience driven systems that filter spam calls can still be used to put probabilities on claims based on present user base understanding, but consensus only goes so far. My guess is such a system has to run on a commons platform like a SAFE mesh where the end users control if not own the core hardware sans ISPs.

So right on how bad (manipulated) sponsored search is- even worse than sponaored media, but exactly the wrong analysis on sponsored (fake) media.

There could be no worse conflict of interest in society than sponosored media, it will produce results that are worse than fake by definition. In essence it is censorship by a sponsor/employer/capital class, but its also spin but most importantly a paid for candidate pre-filter. It means media will consolidate to oligarchy (pure propaganda) it means most importantly sponsored law (law as crime) and sponsored politicians (criminal bribe takers writing puppet highest bidder law.) Its an end to the power sharing of democracy and its point is to convert almost all people into property or slaves- and lets not kid ourselves this is what a business first society means as business is at best a tool of society not its master, and it means rule by the stupid and unethical. . Highest bidder law and news leads to might-makes-right pure tirrany really to rule by inherited wealth or royalty and that royalty that today would be reinforced by database- a fate worse than genocide.

In the states we used to have 2 protections. 1. The free speech doctrine where the court recognized that like all protected speech political speech was important but that it was necessarily last in line in order to protect political speech. 2. The fairness doctrine that said there would be a editorial firewall against the sponsored side of an organization that also carried news or the charter would be yanked immediately (a small ultimately too weak protection) and news organizations would carry the political news for free as part of the cost of access to the public or the or the charter would be yanked.

After Santa Clara, Buckly v Valejo, and now Citizens and the attacks on net neutrality plus accelerated jerrymandering and ALEC bypassing- and the strange decision against fired anchors fighting lies by Monsantos establishing a right for new corporations to lie to the public about matters of deepest public interest, save for twitter and a weakened 4Chan etc. we are at a maximum point of rule by money with the money mega phone drowing all else out. Trump called net neutrality the new fairness doctrine because anything that dilutes the voice of the economic royalists he doesn’t want. I dont think he sees that despite it being imperfect twitter does that in that it bypasses the sponsor filter.

But through the remaining function of the current net it is possible to see that we do have a real enemy in the world and that is petrarchy, the mega phone is solidly in its hand, and the point of petrarchy is to make people into property through the perpetuation its property model. I put a pin hole in the ground and now I am a trillionaire instead of I get a nickle and the rest gets nationalized this type of wealth for non contribution makes currency into a noose. But the capital class has been waging ecconomic war on domestic populations ever since it learned of the death of labor (it own death a necessary implication) back around 1970. Its end game is to try to take the entire globe back to the plantation of the American South. So in the end attention stealing sponsorship is the prime enabler of paracitism through coercion and cord inducing dependency.

Sounds more like vigilantism and chaos, the Wild West all over again. Heaven help us.

Very interesting. I could see how an “unbiased” AI enhanced search system might be the answer to “fake news”. If the AI got to where it is via comprehensive analysis and corroboration, that is. Maybe that will be possible some day. I suspect a sizable portion of the world’s population will still reject the findings though, out of self-protectionist considerations.

2 Likes