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

Features
42

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
43

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

1 Like
44

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
45

@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.

46

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

47

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
48

You’re too easily provoked. Cause you angry :smiling_imp:

We see the world as we are - or a mirror of it.

49

Not if they learned their way past shooting the messenger. If the evidence is made plain, then it’s a confirmation by fact and not opinion. There’s always an element of presentation but who knows what might become possible… AI will think differently…

50

Let’s hope. Increased worldwide education would be needed, I believe, for this to take place, i.e., for narrow self-interest to be replaced with enlightenment. And, for the poverty rate to continue to decrease. It’s hard for people to rationalize when they are hungry.

1 Like
51

I don’t think we need hope, it’s to be expected that simple fallacies will become purged as base education rises. Which, prompts a thought that AI will become teachers, at least for base concepts.

52

@tomcarlson

I think collective vs individual is a false dichotomy.

The issue is hierarchy and aside from developmental hierarchies whether we can survive its imposition any longer.

Do we believe in priviledge? Do we believe in a right to exploit others? Do we believe in paracitism? Is there anything more idiotic than the belief that the average billionaire earned what they have?

Do we want monarchy back where we have to win the lottery and come out of the right set of hips in order to not descend into hell upon birth? Do we want gluttony and vomitoriums?

Top down communism and socialism were never going to work but take away the top downs and the isms lose their corecive power. The communists wanted the state gone, money gone, markets gone, contract gone, parties gone- they never stopped trying, but were willing to be maximally coercive in their efforts to get there including central top down planning along the way.

Criticisms of libertarian socialism seems to that it is still too tolerant of top-down and maybe that it doesnt account for unconscious motivation and thinks education or developmental hierarchy is the solution to coercion.

The answer is surely not that markets are self regulating. There has apparently been no historical example of that (if I am wrong the examples would be extreme outliers.) Even if we say its all emergentist invisible hand (which I am ok with to an extent) think of how many fish aquariums are self regulating and for how long. Or think of perma culture. Tends to have to be an open system to escape quick entrophy and is a market that produces poverty on the one hand where consumers can’t afford demand and billionaires on the other either open or self sustaining system?

And do we believe in making a religion out of exchange or trade or business.

Do we believe we should be able to control and coerce each other with money

Do we want rule by the stupid and unethical? That’s what rule by business looks like. How free is the average person caught up in corporate wage slavery at work or at home. How free are their childern? How aware and actually educated is even the Ivy league MBA. W. was a perfect example. You have to be kind of a fool to get a degree in ordering people around (typical intent.)

Exchange within reason is fine in a spice of life way but how do we get to the post state post business leaderless world? Developmental hierarchies including teachers seem fine if not forced. How do we learn that if we try to control another we enslave ourselves, that control is projective?

The in vogue AI control problem to me in the projective sense looks like capital class death jitters. They know there positional death is impending, they can feel it coming on so there is all this nuclear sabre rattling. They fear their payment of reparational debt will coincide with that death and it wont be pretty. Funny to see Corbyn rise in Britain, figure that is still the heart of petrarchy- but Corbyn rises like the the new a bolsheviks. Trump is very accurate representation of the contadictions of the right and where it leads- elites threatened by increasing talk of unconditional GAIs resort to authoritarianism.

I think their only rescue will be a quantum AI learning machine fueled VR that will lure the masse’s attention into another dimension for duration a brave new world. Maybe the only way out of global war or saving us all but they’d have to do better than TV part 2 if they succeed I think it brings the post business and post state world and maybe lasting peace ugly as it might be. Video games to the rescue a better surrogate for aggression than sports. And after all its just a clash of experiences.

1 Like
53

So much wordage and nonsense from people afraid of this new paradigm called fake news that popped up conveniently at a time where everyone is up in arms against each other. Middle ground is the perfect path and SAFE’s inspiration from ants is the answer and people need not lose sight of that. Power to the people, not power-tripping money-grubbing rulers, whether they be corporations or politicians, or even individuals unfortunately wrapped up in supporting them as the slaves they are. This thread’s whole purpose is to distract from the potential of a way better world by thinking along the same problem-solving solutions-driven mentality of David and his team to expand SAFE’s vision toward what the true majority thinks—an amalgamation of different cultures and ideology.

4 Likes
54

SAFE should give people (individuals working alone and/or in cooperation) a new level of privacy, security and freedom related to their data and communications.

Whether you think that will be a good thing or not depends largely on what you think of human nature. Cooperation, and thus some forms of functional hierarchy are inevitable and don’t need to be fought, only influenced.

What SAFE means is a defusion of empowerment. What that means in terms of outcome depends on all of us, together and separately.

2 Likes
55

That brings up an interesting question to ponder: If, in a few years (many years?) one becomes a billionaire via his investment in MaidSafe/Safecoins, should that individual consider that he has earned his billionaire status?

56

I started it and that was not my purpose.

57

Ahh, the old “I’m rubber you’re glue, your words bounce off me and stick to you.” defense. Very good. I remember that from 3rd grade. Good job. You won the 3rd grade debate.

Now, should we discuss why you always change the subject? We were discussing your reprehensible manners, as I recall. No, we were discussing how evil conservatives are. Yes, that’s it.

58

Hmm, so you say the answer is “Brave New World”. I have to say, it’s better than the “1984” that many seem to be pushing us towards.

I am watching the microsoft hololens with interest. When their VR layer over the real world idea is perfected, you can fix up your little concrete cell virtually with luxurious carpets, big screen TVs, windows with ocean views, beautiful gardens, etc. Anybody looking at you, you’re a skinny wretch squatting in an empty concrete cell with some goggles on your face. But to you, when you’re wearing the VR goggles, you’re relaxing in a luxurious apartment with birds singing through the open garden window. Better than nothing, I suppose.

1 Like
59

Should do wonders for the morale of real prisoners.

60

I was going to comment this as well

Also I feel there will be an increase of real news by people at the scene. For instance China will no longer be able to rewrite history for those willing to look. Once footage of an event is uploaded it cannot be censored, so police abusing their powers or governments using force on their own people (USA has turned/killed on its own peaceful people too). These are things that can be worth not changing the fake news world we live in now.

Its even possible that new news reporters will emerge from background and get followers simply because they deliver real news.

2 Likes
61

Works both ways though. You can upload photos or videos and create misinformation by mislabeling it or by outright video editing. We will still have a hard time immediately discerning real from fake. That’s why it is, and will be, advisable not to react prematurely. Once, trust has been developed, though, in one particular source, that source will be even more invaluable to you in the future with SAFE than it is today.

1 Like