3 ms·

SEO-based "reputation" is just a misnomer; asking for actual people being rated opens the door to easy silencing of critics. The problem is not the media, but

by jlg23 10y ago

SEO-based "reputation" is just a misnomer; asking for actual people being rated opens the door to easy silencing of critics. The problem is not the media, but our consumer attitude to news: Only a few track down the source of a news and read the actual ticker message or scientific paper. Even fewer understand the background of a media outlet, its tone/agenda and business relations. In your Utopos the "truths and facts" would not be your own, it would be those of whoever controls the reputation database. You can watch a system like this unfold in China[1] - and because it is China, we all agree without a second thought that this is a tool for oppression... [1] https://chinacopyrightandmedia.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/planning-outline-for-the-construction-of-a-social-credit-system-2014-2020/ https://chinacopyrightandmedia.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/plan...

dredmorbius 10y ago
Criteria of Truth isn't a greenfields. There is extant literature and authorities to be consulted, and, perhaps, questioned: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth Any reputation or recommendation system is subject to gaming. The questions are: what fundamentally does it promote, what are its internal incentive structures, and is it fundamentally trustable. You don't get away from any of those questions (or concerns) no matter what you replace it with. Aiming at truth itself strikes me as vastly preferable to the extant model. Understanding that truth itself can be imprecise, and building considerations of this (say: through fuzzing or randomising SERP) into the system also helps. What significant amounts of research, ranging from highly formal to informal, have show, is that the lack of accountability by reptuation has lead to numerous actors hijacking our epistemic systems. Lauren Weinstein, Pew, Snopes, ProPublica, and others, have reported on this at length. https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/5wg0hp/when_epistemic_systems_gain_social_and_political/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/5wg0hp/when_ep...

by jlg23 10y ago

dredmorbius 10y ago

Criteria of Truth isn't a greenfields. There is extant literature and authorities to be consulted, and, perhaps, questioned: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth Any reputation or recommendation system is subject to gaming. The questions are: what fundamentally does it promote, what are its internal incentive structures, and is it fundamentally trustable. You don't get away from any of those questions (or concerns) no matter what you replace it with. Aiming at truth itself strikes me as vastly preferable to the extant model. Understanding that truth itself can be imprecise, and building considerations of this (say: through fuzzing or randomising SERP) into the system also helps. What significant amounts of research, ranging from highly formal to informal, have show, is that the lack of accountability by reptuation has lead to numerous actors hijacking our epistemic systems. Lauren Weinstein, Pew, Snopes, ProPublica, and others, have reported on this at length. https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/5wg0hp/when_epistemic_systems_gain_social_and_political/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/5wg0hp/when_ep...