3 ms·

But why is this the danger now in a way that it hasn't been previously? You could have presented fake documents for hundreds of years now, but it's not like we

But why is this the danger now in a way that it hasn't been previously? You could have presented fake documents for hundreds of years now, but it's not like we don't have any credible news organizations as a result.

adrianN 7y ago
It gets increasingly cheap to manufacture convincing fakes, but it doesn't get any cheaper to do quality journalism. The risk as I see it is that there is such an overwhelming tsunami of manufactured reality that it becomes impossible to tell truth from fiction.
- setr 7y ago
  It was never that expensive to manufacture fake text. Minorly expensive to manufacture fake images. And we've been hit by tabloids, spam and so on before. None of that is new. Overwhelmed by content is/was/will be a problem that is solved very simply: people limit the distribution lanes they consume, and naturally establish "trust networks" and hierarchies. Nyt didn't become "trusted" by accident. People aren't as dumb as you seem to think. Anyways the problem is of distribution, not that a lie can be told. If we can't trust our distribution lanes to actually reflect the institutions we're trusting, then we can't establish our trust networks. And this is a real problem: our distribution lanes are divorced now from our actual information distrubuters; medium, Facebook, Twitter, etc fuck around with our trust networks, randomly injecting their own bullshit into our feeds and messing around with feed-order based on non-trust metrics (eg money paid) such that they've become fairly unreliable. And our classical trustable institutions have become less trustworthy, as they flounder about trying to make sense of the "digital age", and have so far done so in a pathetic fashion
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - adrianN 7y ago
    In the past you had to pay a person to write that fake text. Wait a few more years and you'll see convincing text coming out of some algorithm at the cost of an EC2 instance.
    - setr 7y ago
      That's fine and well, but again, I don't think the existence of it is new; if they generate 1 lie a day, or 1000, or a million, it doesn't change much. It gets resolved by the trust distribution network. When that network breaks down, you only need a single good lie to do the damage.
- larnmar 7y ago
  The funny part is that Dan Rather and his producers were fooled by a deeply unconvincing fake — a supposedly Vietnam-era typewritten document that was obviously made using Microsoft Word using default settings. Furthermore, many many people continued to defend it as real for a long time after partisans on the other side had thoroughly debunked it. If 2004 news could be fooled by a fake that took a couple of minutes to make, I’m not that worried that today’s news is any better.

adrianN 7y ago

It gets increasingly cheap to manufacture convincing fakes, but it doesn't get any cheaper to do quality journalism. The risk as I see it is that there is such an overwhelming tsunami of manufactured reality that it becomes impossible to tell truth from fiction.

setr 7y ago
It was never that expensive to manufacture fake text. Minorly expensive to manufacture fake images. And we've been hit by tabloids, spam and so on before. None of that is new. Overwhelmed by content is/was/will be a problem that is solved very simply: people limit the distribution lanes they consume, and naturally establish "trust networks" and hierarchies. Nyt didn't become "trusted" by accident. People aren't as dumb as you seem to think. Anyways the problem is of distribution, not that a lie can be told. If we can't trust our distribution lanes to actually reflect the institutions we're trusting, then we can't establish our trust networks. And this is a real problem: our distribution lanes are divorced now from our actual information distrubuters; medium, Facebook, Twitter, etc fuck around with our trust networks, randomly injecting their own bullshit into our feeds and messing around with feed-order based on non-trust metrics (eg money paid) such that they've become fairly unreliable. And our classical trustable institutions have become less trustworthy, as they flounder about trying to make sense of the "digital age", and have so far done so in a pathetic fashion
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- adrianN 7y ago
  In the past you had to pay a person to write that fake text. Wait a few more years and you'll see convincing text coming out of some algorithm at the cost of an EC2 instance.
  - setr 7y ago
    That's fine and well, but again, I don't think the existence of it is new; if they generate 1 lie a day, or 1000, or a million, it doesn't change much. It gets resolved by the trust distribution network. When that network breaks down, you only need a single good lie to do the damage.
larnmar 7y ago
The funny part is that Dan Rather and his producers were fooled by a deeply unconvincing fake — a supposedly Vietnam-era typewritten document that was obviously made using Microsoft Word using default settings. Furthermore, many many people continued to defend it as real for a long time after partisans on the other side had thoroughly debunked it. If 2004 news could be fooled by a fake that took a couple of minutes to make, I’m not that worried that today’s news is any better.