Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
On 06/26/2015 02:55 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: 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? Yes. But you're not talking about the same thing, I think. When someone says something like People normally trust online content, they're not talking about a continuum or spectrum of trust. They're talking about a binary predicate. That person could have made a more refined statement like People tend to trust online content from sources they find mostly trustworthy. But they would not have said that, I think, because the generalization being made is more like People are not skeptical enough of online content. It's the _enough_ that addresses your point. A similar problem adheres to the word skeptical. I wear that word as a badge. But the recent synonymizing of skepticism with denialism has me worried. I can no longer say I'm an AGW skeptic because people hear I'm an AGW denier, which I'm not. So, skeptical() has also become boolean, like trust(). If those words weren't being [re]defined in that way, then you'd be right. I could say, for example, I trust Fox News to a given extent ... and I could say it with a straight face. That person also could have said something like People have diverse methods for deciding what online content to trust, which would also been more useful. It would imply that some of us are gullible and some of us are skeptical. But I think what they really meant was People are not very diverse in deciding what online content to trust. They simply believe what they see without any scrutiny. And, worse, the article's and project's very existence is implying that it's OK to be gullible, we'll just clamp down on these evil sources of [dm]isinformation for you. You just go on believing whatever you see without any scrutiny. -- ⇔ glen 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
Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
Maybe a restatement of Glen's point would be: Misinformation and disinformation are a given: How we manage our trust is the challenge. I was introduced to Dempster-Shafer theory on a project a number of years ago... and was impressed by some of its' utility as a formalism on the problem we were working (actually extensions to D-S theory)... On the original topic, however, I feel like my world has been, for a very long time, invaded by the forces of propaganda, misinformation and disinformation. One of the more interesting books I received when my grandfather died was entitled Straight and Crooked Thinking written near the turn of the 20th century... and of course we have the Greeks coining concepts such as rhetoric and sophistry millennia ago. - Steve 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 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
Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
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
Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
``That person also could have said something like People have diverse methods for deciding what online content to trust, which would also been more useful. It would imply that some of us are gullible and some of us are skeptical. But I think what they really meant was People are not very diverse in deciding what online content to trust. They simply believe what they see without any scrutiny. And, worse, the article's and project's very existence is implying that it's OK to be gullible, we'll just clamp down on these evil sources of [dm]isinformation for you. You just go on believing whatever you see without any scrutiny.'' Are the trustworthy sources playing a long game? The defection will come, it is just a matter of how many people are sucked-in before it does.. Marcus 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
Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
On 06/26/2015 03:21 PM, Steve Smith wrote: Maybe a restatement of Glen's point would be: Misinformation and disinformation are a given: How we manage our trust is the challenge. Well, not quite. I would have said that trust is an unreachable limit. (And distrust should also be an unreachable limit -- there is information to be gained even from the most random looking sources -- eg the cosmic background.) On 06/26/2015 03:34 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: Are the trustworthy sources playing a long game? The defection will come, it is just a matter of how many people are sucked-in before it does.. Yeah but that process will tend toward the least common denominator. It's why we end up with silly infotainment news programs that emphasize the weather forecast and cute pictures of kids on their birthday. To say anything useful literally _means_ to say something that is more likely to cause someone to defect ... even if the defection is because the audience doesn't have the attention span required. -- ⇔ glen 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
Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
Yeah but that process will tend toward the least common denominator. It's why we end up with silly infotainment news programs that emphasize the weather forecast and cute pictures of kids on their birthday. CBS or Comcast cover that, but also the evening news. In various situations such conglomerates may find it in their interest to present information in ways that benefit their bottom line, even to audiences that are above the least common denominator. Even if their news programs are credible and honest most of the time, it's exceptional times where their reputation can be monetized. These situations could plausibly impact people as much as propaganda. Marcus 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
