5 ms·

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 high

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.
unity1001 6y ago
Even the very first statement is false. Actually it has the lie baked into it: "Iraq missed its chance to disarm itself OF weapons of mass destruction". It presents existence of WMDs as a truth. It doesnt say that "These countries accuse Iraq of having WMDs". It presents the existence of WMDs as a truism. That's 'opinion shaping'. And thats what 'authoritative sources' do all the time.
- lstamour 5y ago
  > 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 statement would be correct in that the US put forth a proposal that Iraq had such weapons and the statement being countered was that very proposal. CNN wrote that first paragraph and what follows is the statement submitted to the UN, presumably verbatim. If you click the CNN link, you'll see the rest of the text reads very differently, and that was my point. That an authoritative differing opinion can exist, that a context engine could line up such differing opinions, but that if you really take it a step or two farther, you'd have to dig through a few more layers of context (history) to understand why the differences in opinion exist, or what's in it for the stronger party to get their way, or perhaps what the stronger party/narrative-maker is afraid of. But you can't stop at countering the mainstream, you should give equal room to the context surrounding alternative or less mainstream ideas, some of which will be considered slander, but should still be mentioned in a fair context engine. Context engines should be about presenting sourced evidence, and while they can be gamed (Wikipedia and, well, social media voting comes to mind), given enough sources they also should be relatively up-to-date.

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.

unity1001 6y ago

Even the very first statement is false. Actually it has the lie baked into it: "Iraq missed its chance to disarm itself OF weapons of mass destruction". It presents existence of WMDs as a truth. It doesnt say that "These countries accuse Iraq of having WMDs". It presents the existence of WMDs as a truism. That's 'opinion shaping'. And thats what 'authoritative sources' do all the time.

lstamour 5y ago
> 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 statement would be correct in that the US put forth a proposal that Iraq had such weapons and the statement being countered was that very proposal. CNN wrote that first paragraph and what follows is the statement submitted to the UN, presumably verbatim. If you click the CNN link, you'll see the rest of the text reads very differently, and that was my point. That an authoritative differing opinion can exist, that a context engine could line up such differing opinions, but that if you really take it a step or two farther, you'd have to dig through a few more layers of context (history) to understand why the differences in opinion exist, or what's in it for the stronger party to get their way, or perhaps what the stronger party/narrative-maker is afraid of. But you can't stop at countering the mainstream, you should give equal room to the context surrounding alternative or less mainstream ideas, some of which will be considered slander, but should still be mentioned in a fair context engine. Context engines should be about presenting sourced evidence, and while they can be gamed (Wikipedia and, well, social media voting comes to mind), given enough sources they also should be relatively up-to-date.