2 ms·
I was saying something like that for a long time now, but recently I started thinking that it's even more on an non-issue than I thought. I mean, what I was say
by krick 7y ago
I was saying something like that for a long time now, but recently I started thinking that it's even more on an non-issue than I thought. I mean, what I was saying is that "yeah, this is all new and weird, but when everybody started using Photohop it was also weird, and yet we are moving on".
But recently I read "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius", and I thought that the point Borges was making could be easily described as critique of "fake-news post-realism of today", except it was 80 years ago. And while the notion of this problem not being new at first seemed weird to me, eventually I figured this is pretty natural: while 80 (or 800 for that matter) years ago there wasn't any such tools to manipulate information on that scale, nobody had the access to information on that scale in the first place. So anyone could be fooled by more powerful actor anyway. Offensive tools of any time are roughly the same as the defensive tools.
It's just that these 20 years at the turn of the century were somewhat the sweet spot, when we had this "Internet for people like us", so it was us who was fooling the less knowledgeable people, while keeping the belief that we are relatively safe from being maleficently disinformed by somebody else. And now we can clearly see it's not necessarily the case anymore, ao it feels like something new.
But it really isn't. As always.