3 ms·

I don't understand your comment. The comment you were responding to was also describing an observable phenomenon (regardless of intent). You were putting these

by croon 6y ago

I don't understand your comment. The comment you were responding to was also describing an observable phenomenon (regardless of intent). You were putting these against each other and ascribing intent (and attacking that) to one, but now ignoring it in yours. The internet is spammed daily by non-news "news sites" (usually behind privacy shield and without any about page, and no history to examine), blogs, tweets, facebook posts, emails attacking by misrepresenting established institutions. I get exposed to it constantly. I can't know who/where from or why, but I can definitely state that it happens. If we are merely stating observable phenomenons, then fine, but then I don't get the point of your original comment regardless.

keiferski 6y ago
My point is that technology leads to change. I guess if you were the Catholic Church in 1650, you’d be complaining about all this new ‘misinformation’ being printed by Gutenberg presses and promulgated by Protestant preachers. And certainly in some cases you would be correct in calling it propaganda. In other cases you’d be wrong and your opponents would be justified in criticizing you. But that wouldn’t ultimately matter, at all, as we have seen in the last 400 years, these things cannot be controlled. The internet is like the printing press x1000. Understanding this dynamic is critical to understanding the future of information.
- croon 6y ago
  > My point is that technology leads to change. Sure. > I guess if you were the Catholic Church in 1650, you’d be complaining about all this new ‘misinformation’ being printed by Gutenberg presses and promulgated by Protestant preachers. And certainly in some cases you would be correct in calling it propaganda. In other cases you’d be wrong and your opponents would be justified in criticizing you. I guess? But how is it relevant? > But that wouldn’t ultimately matter, at all, as we have seen in the last 400 years, these things cannot be controlled. Sure. Agreed. I just reject the comparison between the catholic church and universities/media (fuzzy definition)/government (agencies, departments, professionals that aren't politicians). If those parts of your comments by your own account doesn't matter, I don't understand why you'd add them. > The internet is like the printing press x1000. Fully agreed, the scale changes everything.
  - keiferski 6y ago
    I just think they are similar situations. The old controllers of information are being challenged by new technologies. Political forces are involved. It’s very similar to the 1600s. This is why any response that attempts to censor or refer to “authoritative” sources just isn’t going to work. Millions and millions of people in the US alone don’t trust the big media companies anymore and likely never will again. That will only increase abroad as social media tech becomes easier to implement and countries like India have homegrown alternatives. A Counter-Reformation of sorts amongst the media/universities/etc. might draw back some dissidents, but this is clearly not even being considered. I see no other outcome other than the one I referred to above: reputation-based individuals as sources of information.
    - croon 6y ago
      > I just think they are similar situations. The old controllers of information are being challenged by new technologies. Political forces are involved. It’s very similar to the 1600s. The situations differ in that the church was top-down controlling information flow and dictating science, whereas current "authoritative" sources aren't top-down, aren't one organism, and by and large based in science and rigorous research. The effect in regards to institutions might be the same, I don't know, but the outcome at large is the opposite, currently. But I'm all for discussing how to move forward.

by croon 6y ago

keiferski 6y ago

My point is that technology leads to change. I guess if you were the Catholic Church in 1650, you’d be complaining about all this new ‘misinformation’ being printed by Gutenberg presses and promulgated by Protestant preachers. And certainly in some cases you would be correct in calling it propaganda. In other cases you’d be wrong and your opponents would be justified in criticizing you. But that wouldn’t ultimately matter, at all, as we have seen in the last 400 years, these things cannot be controlled. The internet is like the printing press x1000. Understanding this dynamic is critical to understanding the future of information.

croon 6y ago
> My point is that technology leads to change. Sure. > I guess if you were the Catholic Church in 1650, you’d be complaining about all this new ‘misinformation’ being printed by Gutenberg presses and promulgated by Protestant preachers. And certainly in some cases you would be correct in calling it propaganda. In other cases you’d be wrong and your opponents would be justified in criticizing you. I guess? But how is it relevant? > But that wouldn’t ultimately matter, at all, as we have seen in the last 400 years, these things cannot be controlled. Sure. Agreed. I just reject the comparison between the catholic church and universities/media (fuzzy definition)/government (agencies, departments, professionals that aren't politicians). If those parts of your comments by your own account doesn't matter, I don't understand why you'd add them. > The internet is like the printing press x1000. Fully agreed, the scale changes everything.
- keiferski 6y ago
  I just think they are similar situations. The old controllers of information are being challenged by new technologies. Political forces are involved. It’s very similar to the 1600s. This is why any response that attempts to censor or refer to “authoritative” sources just isn’t going to work. Millions and millions of people in the US alone don’t trust the big media companies anymore and likely never will again. That will only increase abroad as social media tech becomes easier to implement and countries like India have homegrown alternatives. A Counter-Reformation of sorts amongst the media/universities/etc. might draw back some dissidents, but this is clearly not even being considered. I see no other outcome other than the one I referred to above: reputation-based individuals as sources of information.
  - croon 6y ago
    > I just think they are similar situations. The old controllers of information are being challenged by new technologies. Political forces are involved. It’s very similar to the 1600s. The situations differ in that the church was top-down controlling information flow and dictating science, whereas current "authoritative" sources aren't top-down, aren't one organism, and by and large based in science and rigorous research. The effect in regards to institutions might be the same, I don't know, but the outcome at large is the opposite, currently. But I'm all for discussing how to move forward.