5 ms·

'Authoritative sources' gave us the Iraqi WMDs lie and pushed it for 8 years~. Government officials, intelligence officials, major media outlets, major mainstre

'Authoritative sources' gave us the Iraqi WMDs lie and pushed it for 8 years~. Government officials, intelligence officials, major media outlets, major mainstream journalists included. I dont need any fight against misinformation fueled by such 'authoritative sources'. Last time, it resulted in 1 million deaths, destruction of a country and creation of ISIS.

briantakita 6y ago
Careful. Many people will claim that you think "wrong"...As in how dare you think critically about "authoritative" sources. "Author" is also the root word of "authoritarian". "Authors" also create "narratives" to influence the hearts & minds of the audience, presumably for the benefit of the "author". And how does one become one of these "authors"? Nonetheless, this sort of tech can also be used for "good", as in providing a resource of a variety of different good faith takes on a certain subject so the reader is empowered to understand that nuance of a subject from different perspectives. Since this tech will be used to empower the "authors", we might as well make tech that empowers the audience to move beyond being passive programmable consumers of information. Rather the audience can become the active "author" of their own lives, philosophy, & perspective.
lstamour 6y ago
I’m not sure that argument holds up against a system like this. Who says the context has to be one-sided? It can still be authoritative. If anything, this highlights the apparent need for such an engine if it can appropriately source such statements to provide additional context to otherwise one-sided pieces. For example: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/02/24/sprj.irq.memo/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/02/24/sprj.irq.memo/index.htm... > (CNN) -- France, Russia and Germany submitted a memorandum to the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) on Monday that was meant to counter a proposed resolution backed by the United States, Britain and Spain that would declare that Iraq has missed its last chance to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction. The following is the text of that memorandum: > 1. Full and effective disarmament in accordance with the relevant UNSC resolutions remains the imperative objective of the international community. Our priority should be to achieve this peacefully through the inspection regime. The military option should only be a last resort. So far, the conditions for using force against Iraq are not fulfilled: > • While suspicions remain, no evidence has been given that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or capabilities in this field; > • Inspections have just reached their full pace; they are functioning without hindrance; they have already produced results; > • While not yet fully satisfactory, Iraqi co-operation is improving, as mentioned by the chief inspectors in their last report.
- lstamour 6y ago
  At the time, the phrase I remember most was “A coalition of the willing,” in reference to countries who found either agreement or benefit in going along with the US plan: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing And even at the time popular opinion was that Afghanistan was a mess but at least related to the attacks of 9/11, but Iraq was seen as a continuation of Bush Sr’s war, it was seen as political. If in hindsight it didn’t look like it was reported on that way, that was as much a failing of certain newspapers—internationally, I can say there were many opinions. A contextual system would have picked up on different contexts from different regions perhaps. Perhaps it could go two or three layers deep, so you can evaluate both surface opinions, interests of the writer, of the publisher and of the speaker or subject of the piece. Of course, it is much harder to place statements in context in real-time when information is often missing or partially withheld, but even a system that had a lag in context, or could follow up to provide more context in future might be a useful system. It would help correct misconceptions: shocking lies often spread faster than less shocking truths…
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    > place statements in context I've studied those wars in some detail, and had decades to read followup news on them. It would be fair to say the US public was misled about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But looking at those wars in context, I don't think there were alternatives besides doing early, successful attacks on the leaders involved (Hussein, OBL, etc.), which didn't happen. Hussein wanted to be the new Suleiman, and conquer the entire Middle East, and OBL likewise. The biggest regret is that American distraction there allowed the CCP to quietly build into a very dangerous superpower. While the USSR was mostly inward-focused during the Cold War, the CCP is challenging the US on the global stage. According to Dr. VDH, 75% of the time when there is a new rising power, there is war. My estimate is this will happen in the next 24 months.
  - unity1001 6y ago
    Indeed. Despite all the 'evidence' (lying) in UN, and 'opinion shaping' by Angloamerican corporate media, US wasnt able to get a UN resolution to invade Iraq. So it just went ahead and did it ILLEGALLY, through a 'coalition of the willing'. ie its satellites. ... Any system that uses 'authoritative' sources would not only be gamed, but also the establishments would never let any opposing source have any authority to challenge the narrative of its own. A good example of this is how US is using the existence of conspiracy theories in social media as a means to pressure social media to remove not only conspiracy theories, but also any source which opposes US foreign policy. ~60 year independent anti-war outlets who function with reader donations, the outlets which opposed and exposed Vietnam war, other war crimes etc are labeled as 'conspiracy sites', 'Foreign propaganda' and lumped in with sites which propagate flat earth theories to get them pushed down in algorithms. Courtesy of John McCain, then acting leader of the US military-industry complex, who started that witch hunt.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> ‘Authoritative sources’ gave us the Iraqi WMDs lie and pushed it for 8 years~ No, they didn’t, at least not anything close to exclusively. Authoritative sources debunked it nearly in realtime. This was particularly true of the Winnebagos of Mass Destruction, where the fact that they weren’t want the US/UK were saying that they were, and that the US/UK new that they weren’t because the UK, with US knowledge, sold them to Iraq, with detailed background, was reported in major media before the US presentation to the UN. Which meeting was also carried live on major media, and including UN weapons inspectors debunking claims made by the US in that presentation immediately after the US made them. Yes, Judith Miller existed, but there were lots of prominent contrary reports. And of course, even when they were debunked in the same article, the fact that the US government made particular claims was itself prominent news. People who only saw the government claims, who read that as the major media endorsing the claims, and who only saw pro-administration “independent” reporting like Miller’s and not the other side didn’t see things that way because that’s all their was, but because that’s what they wanted to see, for one kind or another of confirmation bias (whether it was only seeing the reporting that reinforced their preconceived notions about the ground facts, or only seeing the reporting that reinforced their preconceived notions about the media.)
- briantakita 6y ago
  What "authoritative sources debunked it nearly in realtime"? If these sources were authoritative, why did the corporate media & the US government (e.g. State Dept) beat the drums of regime change? Why did we go to war? It sounds like the "authoritative sources" were all in on the war. You can say that there were "contradictory reports", but in shaping public opinion, what matters is what is shown & the narrative presented to the public. These "contradictory reports" you mentioned were buried under enormous heaps of propaganda. What is to stop the "authors" of the "authoritative sources" from burying the "contradictory reports" on contemporary issues? In short, it's about power. Whoever has the power determines the narrative coming from the "authoritative sources". Whoever has the power is incentivized to further their own interests to maintain their power. The "author's" narrative, under the pretense of truth & whatever else justifies the authority, sole purpose is to shape public opinion to further strengthen the "author's" hold on power.

briantakita 6y ago

Careful. Many people will claim that you think "wrong"...As in how dare you think critically about "authoritative" sources. "Author" is also the root word of "authoritarian". "Authors" also create "narratives" to influence the hearts & minds of the audience, presumably for the benefit of the "author". And how does one become one of these "authors"? Nonetheless, this sort of tech can also be used for "good", as in providing a resource of a variety of different good faith takes on a certain subject so the reader is empowered to understand that nuance of a subject from different perspectives. Since this tech will be used to empower the "authors", we might as well make tech that empowers the audience to move beyond being passive programmable consumers of information. Rather the audience can become the active "author" of their own lives, philosophy, & perspective.

lstamour 6y ago

I’m not sure that argument holds up against a system like this. Who says the context has to be one-sided? It can still be authoritative. If anything, this highlights the apparent need for such an engine if it can appropriately source such statements to provide additional context to otherwise one-sided pieces. For example: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/02/24/sprj.irq.memo/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/02/24/sprj.irq.memo/index.htm... > (CNN) -- France, Russia and Germany submitted a memorandum to the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) on Monday that was meant to counter a proposed resolution backed by the United States, Britain and Spain that would declare that Iraq has missed its last chance to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction. The following is the text of that memorandum: > 1. Full and effective disarmament in accordance with the relevant UNSC resolutions remains the imperative objective of the international community. Our priority should be to achieve this peacefully through the inspection regime. The military option should only be a last resort. So far, the conditions for using force against Iraq are not fulfilled: > • While suspicions remain, no evidence has been given that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or capabilities in this field; > • Inspections have just reached their full pace; they are functioning without hindrance; they have already produced results; > • While not yet fully satisfactory, Iraqi co-operation is improving, as mentioned by the chief inspectors in their last report.

lstamour 6y ago
At the time, the phrase I remember most was “A coalition of the willing,” in reference to countries who found either agreement or benefit in going along with the US plan: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing And even at the time popular opinion was that Afghanistan was a mess but at least related to the attacks of 9/11, but Iraq was seen as a continuation of Bush Sr’s war, it was seen as political. If in hindsight it didn’t look like it was reported on that way, that was as much a failing of certain newspapers—internationally, I can say there were many opinions. A contextual system would have picked up on different contexts from different regions perhaps. Perhaps it could go two or three layers deep, so you can evaluate both surface opinions, interests of the writer, of the publisher and of the speaker or subject of the piece. Of course, it is much harder to place statements in context in real-time when information is often missing or partially withheld, but even a system that had a lag in context, or could follow up to provide more context in future might be a useful system. It would help correct misconceptions: shocking lies often spread faster than less shocking truths…
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > place statements in context I've studied those wars in some detail, and had decades to read followup news on them. It would be fair to say the US public was misled about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But looking at those wars in context, I don't think there were alternatives besides doing early, successful attacks on the leaders involved (Hussein, OBL, etc.), which didn't happen. Hussein wanted to be the new Suleiman, and conquer the entire Middle East, and OBL likewise. The biggest regret is that American distraction there allowed the CCP to quietly build into a very dangerous superpower. While the USSR was mostly inward-focused during the Cold War, the CCP is challenging the US on the global stage. According to Dr. VDH, 75% of the time when there is a new rising power, there is war. My estimate is this will happen in the next 24 months.
- unity1001 6y ago
  Indeed. Despite all the 'evidence' (lying) in UN, and 'opinion shaping' by Angloamerican corporate media, US wasnt able to get a UN resolution to invade Iraq. So it just went ahead and did it ILLEGALLY, through a 'coalition of the willing'. ie its satellites. ... Any system that uses 'authoritative' sources would not only be gamed, but also the establishments would never let any opposing source have any authority to challenge the narrative of its own. A good example of this is how US is using the existence of conspiracy theories in social media as a means to pressure social media to remove not only conspiracy theories, but also any source which opposes US foreign policy. ~60 year independent anti-war outlets who function with reader donations, the outlets which opposed and exposed Vietnam war, other war crimes etc are labeled as 'conspiracy sites', 'Foreign propaganda' and lumped in with sites which propagate flat earth theories to get them pushed down in algorithms. Courtesy of John McCain, then acting leader of the US military-industry complex, who started that witch hunt.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> ‘Authoritative sources’ gave us the Iraqi WMDs lie and pushed it for 8 years~ No, they didn’t, at least not anything close to exclusively. Authoritative sources debunked it nearly in realtime. This was particularly true of the Winnebagos of Mass Destruction, where the fact that they weren’t want the US/UK were saying that they were, and that the US/UK new that they weren’t because the UK, with US knowledge, sold them to Iraq, with detailed background, was reported in major media before the US presentation to the UN. Which meeting was also carried live on major media, and including UN weapons inspectors debunking claims made by the US in that presentation immediately after the US made them. Yes, Judith Miller existed, but there were lots of prominent contrary reports. And of course, even when they were debunked in the same article, the fact that the US government made particular claims was itself prominent news. People who only saw the government claims, who read that as the major media endorsing the claims, and who only saw pro-administration “independent” reporting like Miller’s and not the other side didn’t see things that way because that’s all their was, but because that’s what they wanted to see, for one kind or another of confirmation bias (whether it was only seeing the reporting that reinforced their preconceived notions about the ground facts, or only seeing the reporting that reinforced their preconceived notions about the media.)

briantakita 6y ago
What "authoritative sources debunked it nearly in realtime"? If these sources were authoritative, why did the corporate media & the US government (e.g. State Dept) beat the drums of regime change? Why did we go to war? It sounds like the "authoritative sources" were all in on the war. You can say that there were "contradictory reports", but in shaping public opinion, what matters is what is shown & the narrative presented to the public. These "contradictory reports" you mentioned were buried under enormous heaps of propaganda. What is to stop the "authors" of the "authoritative sources" from burying the "contradictory reports" on contemporary issues? In short, it's about power. Whoever has the power determines the narrative coming from the "authoritative sources". Whoever has the power is incentivized to further their own interests to maintain their power. The "author's" narrative, under the pretense of truth & whatever else justifies the authority, sole purpose is to shape public opinion to further strengthen the "author's" hold on power.