Are there not more and less risky sources? If you have source that provides you with high-quality, predictive information, over and over and they are right, should not that individual be allowed less scrutiny than a person that has no track record, or a bad track record? Given finite attention, doesn't a person have to decide what to scrutinize, and what to let slide?
-----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 5:28 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat? That scratch in my surface jumps me back, yet again, to the postmodern point: Beware of the online war of propaganda http://news.usc.edu/82853/beware-of-the-war-of-propaganda-taking-place-online/ > “People normally trust online content,” said Farshad Kooti, one of the Ph.D. > candidates at USC Viterbi who worked with Galstyan. “Unfortunately, this > introduces an opportunity to spread misinformation by using automated bots > that are very hard to detect.” Misinformation and disinformation are NOT the threat. Trust is the threat. -- glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
