6 ms·

> Today marks 28 years since I submitted my original proposal for the worldwide web. I imagined the web as an open platform that would allow everyone, everywher

by K0nserv 10y ago

> Today marks 28 years since I submitted my original proposal for the worldwide web. I imagined the web as an open platform that would allow everyone, everywhere to share information, access opportunities, and collaborate across geographic and cultural boundaries. Seems to me that the above and the points raised in point 2 sit on opposite sides of the spectrum. Either you get a free and open internet where everyone can publish content as they like or you police who and want can be published. The spread of misinformation seems to be a direct result of the democratic nature of the internet.

Razengan 10y ago
The spread of misinformation is better countered by educating people about the potential and existence of misinformation, rather than policing the web. Just like children learning and growing wiser about everyday social deception etc., as opposed to policing everything people do and say offline.
- elbigbad 10y ago
  Is this just an opinion, or do you have any data on this?
  - Razengan 10y ago
    Opinion. I mean we tell kids to be wary of strangers, but we can't assign a policeman to every stranger. Easier to teach people that they can be deceived or that bad things can happen, than to prevent any deception or bad thing from ever occurring.
    - phy6 10y ago
      Thank you for the common sense analogy. I have a 'hunch' that one could whip up a proof based on countably vs uncountably infinite mappings where the number of ways to deceive/offend outweigh the number of authorities which could police them, even assuming such ideals as perfect enforcement and willingness to submit to being policed (i.e. international uniformity of laws). But that's just a first-coffee-of-the-morning hunch.
      - maroonblazer 10y ago
        My math prowess isn't up to the task but I'd love to see such a proof if it exists. Not because I don't believe it would support the point (I have the same 'hunch') but because the math geek in me would eat it up.
      - schoen 10y ago
        It's hard to see how theorems about infinite sets can apply directly apply to human relationships. Maybe you'll just make a heuristic argument showing that something grows as n² or 2ⁿ? For example, the number of possible relationships among n people grows as n². The world's population of about 7490000000 individuals would support about 28050049996255000000 potential relationships between individuals, or twice that many opinions that individuals have about one another.
    - phy6 10y ago
      I also subscribe to the opinion that total avoidance of bad things is impossible, and that preparation for handling life's faults is a necessary part of the programming each person should have.
      - Silhouette 10y ago
        preparation for handling life's faults is a necessary part of the programming each person should have That's a reasonable position, but sometimes no amount of preparation can give the little guy adequate protection against a big guy seeking to exploit him. That's why we have legal systems and regulatory frameworks in the first place, and providing a deterrent against big guys taking unfair advantage to reduce the number of times it happens and some sort of remedy for the little guy in the remaining cases is generally a good thing even if it's not a perfect solution.
    - scholia 10y ago
      How do you cope with the fact that a large slice of the population seeks out bad things and refuses good things? The obvious examples are US news sources such as Fox News, Breitbart and Infowars [1]. However, it could also apply to fast food eating habits. [1] http://uk.businessinsider.com/conservative-media-trump-drudge-coulter-2016-8 http://uk.businessinsider.com/conservative-media-trump-drudg...
      - colmvp 10y ago
        I don't know how to reconcile this. On the one hand, I believe information and speech should be mostly unfiltered. If people want to spread information that denies the moon landing or climate change, or extols the existence of teapots revolving about the sun, by all means. I'd rather know who they are and allow them to publicly exercise their ignorance. I assume the public would help cause a correction of the zeitgeist. On the other hand, the fact is that some people become deeply misinformed and do things against their own interests (e.g. voting for a candidate who promises to undo systems that benefit the voter), which can effect all of us. To spare us from going into the rabbit hole of a party politics, I'll just say I read a recent interview with a voter who wants to get rid of x, even though x in particular crucially provides them a life-saving benefit of y, which they want to keep. How does that even make sense? You delve deeper, and realize that some individuals just listen to the mantra of x being advertised as a terrible thing by certain media and public figures, which is easier to understand than to go into the details as to how specifically it's good and how it specifically could be improved upon. I'd also add technology, like the internet and smartphones, is affecting our behavior far faster than we're aware and in some ways, I think we need to acknowledge our vulnerability. When media companies or groups of websites can cheaply spread misinformation, it is VERY HARD to combat it, because good information takes time to produce and interpret.
        Silhouette 10y ago
        Your concerns are entirely fair, but this also isn't a new issue. Tabloid journalism has been a problem for as long as there have been tabloids. That phenomenon is well known to be highly influential around election times among the part of the population who read those tabloids, even though often that same part of the population will be hurt the most by the measures they are supporting but don't fully understand.
    - gaius 10y ago
      I mean we tell kids to be wary of strangers, but we can't assign a policeman to every stranger. Continuing this analogy - it actually turns out in practice that child abusers are almost never strangers, but someone known to the child, such as a teacher.
  - deevolution 10y ago
    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://media.usm.maine.edu/~lenny/Bullshit/crap_detection.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwja4-OTwdHSAhXK5iYKHQzKBSoQFggkMAE&usg=AFQjCNGK-9uvmS_2EKdgDpgd8Wz8e7ji1Q https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://... Its opinion, but there are definitely people out there who support this approach, such as Neil Postman. Its called crap detection.
epigramx 10y ago
> democratic nature of the internet Democracy assumes 1 person has 1 vote. This is not the case here necessarily.
- K0nserv 10y ago
  Democratic in the sense that it's more democratic than previous publishing platforms because the barrier to entry is lower.
throwawaycopy 10y ago
The DMCA has incentivized everything we see our current corporate-dictated web environment by making none of these businesses liable for any of their actions. The spread of misinformation is a kind of emergent phenomenon. The democratic nature of physical reality hasn't led to every publication turning into the National Enquirer.
- schoen 10y ago
  In this context you might mean the CDA, which provides a different set of immunities. Edit: also note that misinformation isn't necessarily defamatory and so even if online intermediaries were liable for content, there wouldn't necessarily be a legal remedy to suppress most "misinformation". For example, there's probably no aggrieved party who can sue to stop a hoax or urban legend about nonexistent persons.
  - throwawaycopy 10y ago
    If Facebook or Google were to be held liable for the content on their platforms they would not have the same business model that incentivizes outrageous and inflammatory nonsense. They wouldn't have business models that didn't directly attribute personal ownership over authored works. This isn't about people being liable for spreading misinformation, this is about a business model that thrives on misinformation.
mirimir 10y ago
It's a very idealistic goal. But sure, with a free and open Internet (which I'd call anarchic rather than democratic) there's no way to police content. For one thing, there's no overall authority. And even if there were, policing content would be impossibly contentious and prone to injustice. In my opinion, what's needed are privacy and freedom. And education for independent thought, rather than censorship.
ethics_gradient 10y ago
I believe there are two critical components of that that aren't simply natural result of the democratic nature of the internet, nor are necessary. First, WWW is relatively young, so people haven't learned how to use it well. Second, large platforms have been created to shift the democratic nature of the internet - make pseudo-open spaces that are not truly open, like various social networks, and give the users content that is a) tailored to them, so leads to less openness, less improvement and more mindless consumption and b) does it in an obfuscated way, via closed algorithms that prioritize you staying on the website to improving your life. Those might be somewhat naturally occurring, but the degree to which they occur doesn't have to stay the same.

by K0nserv 10y ago

Razengan 10y ago

The spread of misinformation is better countered by educating people about the potential and existence of misinformation, rather than policing the web. Just like children learning and growing wiser about everyday social deception etc., as opposed to policing everything people do and say offline.

elbigbad 10y ago
Is this just an opinion, or do you have any data on this?
- Razengan 10y ago
  Opinion. I mean we tell kids to be wary of strangers, but we can't assign a policeman to every stranger. Easier to teach people that they can be deceived or that bad things can happen, than to prevent any deception or bad thing from ever occurring.
  - phy6 10y ago
    Thank you for the common sense analogy. I have a 'hunch' that one could whip up a proof based on countably vs uncountably infinite mappings where the number of ways to deceive/offend outweigh the number of authorities which could police them, even assuming such ideals as perfect enforcement and willingness to submit to being policed (i.e. international uniformity of laws). But that's just a first-coffee-of-the-morning hunch.
    - maroonblazer 10y ago
      My math prowess isn't up to the task but I'd love to see such a proof if it exists. Not because I don't believe it would support the point (I have the same 'hunch') but because the math geek in me would eat it up.
    - schoen 10y ago
      It's hard to see how theorems about infinite sets can apply directly apply to human relationships. Maybe you'll just make a heuristic argument showing that something grows as n² or 2ⁿ? For example, the number of possible relationships among n people grows as n². The world's population of about 7490000000 individuals would support about 28050049996255000000 potential relationships between individuals, or twice that many opinions that individuals have about one another.
  - phy6 10y ago
    I also subscribe to the opinion that total avoidance of bad things is impossible, and that preparation for handling life's faults is a necessary part of the programming each person should have.
    - Silhouette 10y ago
      preparation for handling life's faults is a necessary part of the programming each person should have That's a reasonable position, but sometimes no amount of preparation can give the little guy adequate protection against a big guy seeking to exploit him. That's why we have legal systems and regulatory frameworks in the first place, and providing a deterrent against big guys taking unfair advantage to reduce the number of times it happens and some sort of remedy for the little guy in the remaining cases is generally a good thing even if it's not a perfect solution.
  - scholia 10y ago
    How do you cope with the fact that a large slice of the population seeks out bad things and refuses good things? The obvious examples are US news sources such as Fox News, Breitbart and Infowars [1]. However, it could also apply to fast food eating habits. [1] http://uk.businessinsider.com/conservative-media-trump-drudge-coulter-2016-8 http://uk.businessinsider.com/conservative-media-trump-drudg...
    - colmvp 10y ago
      I don't know how to reconcile this. On the one hand, I believe information and speech should be mostly unfiltered. If people want to spread information that denies the moon landing or climate change, or extols the existence of teapots revolving about the sun, by all means. I'd rather know who they are and allow them to publicly exercise their ignorance. I assume the public would help cause a correction of the zeitgeist. On the other hand, the fact is that some people become deeply misinformed and do things against their own interests (e.g. voting for a candidate who promises to undo systems that benefit the voter), which can effect all of us. To spare us from going into the rabbit hole of a party politics, I'll just say I read a recent interview with a voter who wants to get rid of x, even though x in particular crucially provides them a life-saving benefit of y, which they want to keep. How does that even make sense? You delve deeper, and realize that some individuals just listen to the mantra of x being advertised as a terrible thing by certain media and public figures, which is easier to understand than to go into the details as to how specifically it's good and how it specifically could be improved upon. I'd also add technology, like the internet and smartphones, is affecting our behavior far faster than we're aware and in some ways, I think we need to acknowledge our vulnerability. When media companies or groups of websites can cheaply spread misinformation, it is VERY HARD to combat it, because good information takes time to produce and interpret.
      - Silhouette 10y ago
        Your concerns are entirely fair, but this also isn't a new issue. Tabloid journalism has been a problem for as long as there have been tabloids. That phenomenon is well known to be highly influential around election times among the part of the population who read those tabloids, even though often that same part of the population will be hurt the most by the measures they are supporting but don't fully understand.
  - gaius 10y ago
    I mean we tell kids to be wary of strangers, but we can't assign a policeman to every stranger. Continuing this analogy - it actually turns out in practice that child abusers are almost never strangers, but someone known to the child, such as a teacher.
- deevolution 10y ago
  https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://media.usm.maine.edu/~lenny/Bullshit/crap_detection.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwja4-OTwdHSAhXK5iYKHQzKBSoQFggkMAE&usg=AFQjCNGK-9uvmS_2EKdgDpgd8Wz8e7ji1Q https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://... Its opinion, but there are definitely people out there who support this approach, such as Neil Postman. Its called crap detection.

epigramx 10y ago

> democratic nature of the internet Democracy assumes 1 person has 1 vote. This is not the case here necessarily.

K0nserv 10y ago
Democratic in the sense that it's more democratic than previous publishing platforms because the barrier to entry is lower.

throwawaycopy 10y ago

The DMCA has incentivized everything we see our current corporate-dictated web environment by making none of these businesses liable for any of their actions. The spread of misinformation is a kind of emergent phenomenon. The democratic nature of physical reality hasn't led to every publication turning into the National Enquirer.

schoen 10y ago
In this context you might mean the CDA, which provides a different set of immunities. Edit: also note that misinformation isn't necessarily defamatory and so even if online intermediaries were liable for content, there wouldn't necessarily be a legal remedy to suppress most "misinformation". For example, there's probably no aggrieved party who can sue to stop a hoax or urban legend about nonexistent persons.
- throwawaycopy 10y ago
  If Facebook or Google were to be held liable for the content on their platforms they would not have the same business model that incentivizes outrageous and inflammatory nonsense. They wouldn't have business models that didn't directly attribute personal ownership over authored works. This isn't about people being liable for spreading misinformation, this is about a business model that thrives on misinformation.

mirimir 10y ago

It's a very idealistic goal. But sure, with a free and open Internet (which I'd call anarchic rather than democratic) there's no way to police content. For one thing, there's no overall authority. And even if there were, policing content would be impossibly contentious and prone to injustice. In my opinion, what's needed are privacy and freedom. And education for independent thought, rather than censorship.

ethics_gradient 10y ago

I believe there are two critical components of that that aren't simply natural result of the democratic nature of the internet, nor are necessary. First, WWW is relatively young, so people haven't learned how to use it well. Second, large platforms have been created to shift the democratic nature of the internet - make pseudo-open spaces that are not truly open, like various social networks, and give the users content that is a) tailored to them, so leads to less openness, less improvement and more mindless consumption and b) does it in an obfuscated way, via closed algorithms that prioritize you staying on the website to improving your life. Those might be somewhat naturally occurring, but the degree to which they occur doesn't have to stay the same.