6 ms·

The cynical side of me thinks that a society with no control over (certain) information is one which is more vulnerable to control by bad actors. We have more o

The cynical side of me thinks that a society with no control over (certain) information is one which is more vulnerable to control by bad actors. We have more of a filtering problem than an access problem at the moment - there's too much information to support all beliefs so people are more likely to become entrenched in whatever they do believe.

cptskippy 9y ago
By and large I think people's desire for raw data has grown from a mistrust of the News stemming from the move away from reporting towards commentary and hidden agenda. Once upon a Time you could mostly trust the news but these days we have "no spin zones" which are in fact entirely spin. You can no longer sit back and consume news, to get the real facts requires a great deal of effort and attention which is exhausting.
- flukus 9y ago
  > Once upon a Time you could mostly trust the news Could we trust them or did we simply not have the means to fact check them and communicate the errors? Awful current affairs programs were around before the web and they were reporting some pretty dubious "facts" back then. Tabloids have been around for 100 years, maybe more.
  - ddingus 9y ago
    It was a different balance. We, in effect, were in a forced trust position. Access to raw information was time consuming and expensive. If it could even be had. Because of that, media was regulated differently. A more diverse body of media (pre-media for profit news and consolidation) as well as the fairness doctrine and a non-profit public service expectation were all strong norms and law in play. Technical limits forced all of us, including the media, to take it more seriously. Yes, we could trust them more than we could now, but also yes, we could not check so easily too.
- KGIII 9y ago
  You might wish to look into the history of journalism. I've written about this before, but there really wasn't a golden age of journalism. This doesn't mean good journalism didn't exist, just that there have always been biased sources. Head to your local library and hit the archives. From yellow journalism to papers owned by political parties, bias and dishonesty has always been a problem.
  - carlmr 9y ago
    Correct, it's just more apparent in the information age, when the raw data can sometimes be found and the bias shown.
    - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
      > Correct, it's just more apparent in the information age, when the raw data can sometimes be found and the bias shown. Of course, data scientists have their political opinions as well. As do journalists deciding which data to publicize. https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    Anything particularly you'd point at of yours?
    - KGIII 9y ago
      Oh, just comments here on HN, Slashdot, and similar. I was once a freelance journalist, so I probably should write up something more formal and better researched. I'm hoping to get some writing in during the coming winter. I have a lot to say.
      - dredmorbius 9y ago
        I'd differ strongly with your premise. There was a golden age of journalism, though it probably peaked with Watergate. Izzy Stone has a great Day at Night interview discussing this. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qV3gO3zxQ1g https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qV3gO3zxQ1g The period probably began with Lippmann's Public Opinion, though it was coverage of the Second World War that probably marked the start of the true peak. By 1980, something was already decidedly off. I'm reading Robert McChesney who does a very good job of recapping the history in Communication Revolution.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  Spin isn't bad. People can see spin and spin things the other way in their head. Choosing what is important to include or what not to include is dangerous.
KGIII 9y ago
Freedom always carries risks.
- taurath 9y ago
  Yup, and intellectual feudalism is one of them, one that I hope we manage to avoid.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    I believe humans are smart enough to filter and learn as they go. We are a resilient species. We will adapt and grow, it is as it always was.
dgut 9y ago
It doesn't matter what your cynical side thinks. Let them be "entrenched in whatever they do believe" if that's the case. All cases of totalitarianism have been possible by "filtering", not the free flow of information. "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it." - MT
- taurath 9y ago
  Thus far (and all before the internet). I consider it more likely that the next form of totalitarianism takes form in fundamentalism.
rphlx 9y ago
> a society with no control over (certain) information is one which is more vulnerable to control by bad actors. Centralized (state and/or corporate) control over information is itself an incredible asset to bad actors. Goebbels et al..
- shevy 9y ago
  Very true. But it gets even worse when you look at lobbyists paid by corporations. In the long run, Google will have to be split up into smaller pieces. You can't control this evil - and greedy -corporation otherwise anymore.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    Unless Google can strike a mutually beneficial deal with the government. I don't think either operate in the best interests of the public.
    - type0 9y ago
      You'll get this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwoadnWKs40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwoadnWKs40
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  Pre-hutton BBC was good and Al Jazeera still is. It's not all Goebbels, especially when that state media has a charter that asserts its independence and commitment to objective reporting.
  - rphlx 9y ago
    One major problem with state-owned centralized media, in my opinion, is that objectivity usually degrades into propaganda whenever that's seriously requested by a senior government official, e.g. in times of war. IIRC the BBC was not always forthcoming about setbacks during the early parts of WWII, for example.
asfdsfggtfd 9y ago
And side of me that studied history thinks that a society with control over (certain) information is one which is more vulnerable to control by bad actors...

cptskippy 9y ago

By and large I think people's desire for raw data has grown from a mistrust of the News stemming from the move away from reporting towards commentary and hidden agenda. Once upon a Time you could mostly trust the news but these days we have "no spin zones" which are in fact entirely spin. You can no longer sit back and consume news, to get the real facts requires a great deal of effort and attention which is exhausting.

flukus 9y ago
> Once upon a Time you could mostly trust the news Could we trust them or did we simply not have the means to fact check them and communicate the errors? Awful current affairs programs were around before the web and they were reporting some pretty dubious "facts" back then. Tabloids have been around for 100 years, maybe more.
- ddingus 9y ago
  It was a different balance. We, in effect, were in a forced trust position. Access to raw information was time consuming and expensive. If it could even be had. Because of that, media was regulated differently. A more diverse body of media (pre-media for profit news and consolidation) as well as the fairness doctrine and a non-profit public service expectation were all strong norms and law in play. Technical limits forced all of us, including the media, to take it more seriously. Yes, we could trust them more than we could now, but also yes, we could not check so easily too.
KGIII 9y ago
You might wish to look into the history of journalism. I've written about this before, but there really wasn't a golden age of journalism. This doesn't mean good journalism didn't exist, just that there have always been biased sources. Head to your local library and hit the archives. From yellow journalism to papers owned by political parties, bias and dishonesty has always been a problem.
- carlmr 9y ago
  Correct, it's just more apparent in the information age, when the raw data can sometimes be found and the bias shown.
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    > Correct, it's just more apparent in the information age, when the raw data can sometimes be found and the bias shown. Of course, data scientists have their political opinions as well. As do journalists deciding which data to publicize. https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Anything particularly you'd point at of yours?
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Oh, just comments here on HN, Slashdot, and similar. I was once a freelance journalist, so I probably should write up something more formal and better researched. I'm hoping to get some writing in during the coming winter. I have a lot to say.
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      I'd differ strongly with your premise. There was a golden age of journalism, though it probably peaked with Watergate. Izzy Stone has a great Day at Night interview discussing this. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qV3gO3zxQ1g https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qV3gO3zxQ1g The period probably began with Lippmann's Public Opinion, though it was coverage of the Second World War that probably marked the start of the true peak. By 1980, something was already decidedly off. I'm reading Robert McChesney who does a very good job of recapping the history in Communication Revolution.
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
Spin isn't bad. People can see spin and spin things the other way in their head. Choosing what is important to include or what not to include is dangerous.

KGIII 9y ago

Freedom always carries risks.

taurath 9y ago
Yup, and intellectual feudalism is one of them, one that I hope we manage to avoid.
- KGIII 9y ago
  I believe humans are smart enough to filter and learn as they go. We are a resilient species. We will adapt and grow, it is as it always was.

dgut 9y ago

It doesn't matter what your cynical side thinks. Let them be "entrenched in whatever they do believe" if that's the case. All cases of totalitarianism have been possible by "filtering", not the free flow of information. "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it." - MT

taurath 9y ago
Thus far (and all before the internet). I consider it more likely that the next form of totalitarianism takes form in fundamentalism.

rphlx 9y ago

> a society with no control over (certain) information is one which is more vulnerable to control by bad actors. Centralized (state and/or corporate) control over information is itself an incredible asset to bad actors. Goebbels et al..

shevy 9y ago
Very true. But it gets even worse when you look at lobbyists paid by corporations. In the long run, Google will have to be split up into smaller pieces. You can't control this evil - and greedy -corporation otherwise anymore.
- mistermann 9y ago
  Unless Google can strike a mutually beneficial deal with the government. I don't think either operate in the best interests of the public.
  - type0 9y ago
    You'll get this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwoadnWKs40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwoadnWKs40
crdoconnor 9y ago
Pre-hutton BBC was good and Al Jazeera still is. It's not all Goebbels, especially when that state media has a charter that asserts its independence and commitment to objective reporting.
- rphlx 9y ago
  One major problem with state-owned centralized media, in my opinion, is that objectivity usually degrades into propaganda whenever that's seriously requested by a senior government official, e.g. in times of war. IIRC the BBC was not always forthcoming about setbacks during the early parts of WWII, for example.

asfdsfggtfd 9y ago

And side of me that studied history thinks that a society with control over (certain) information is one which is more vulnerable to control by bad actors...