4 ms·

revisionist history is going to be BIG this decade

avereveard 4y ago
we will absolutely lose the ability to validate the trust chain on every piece of information available trough the network. it's too late to retrofit old documents with signatures and the ability of generating everything from artiact picture to fake research document complete with fake citations (generated in full, not only in titles) will make very hard in a hundred years (or less!) to understand history before we decide to implement (if ever) a global trust chain for information.
- Eumenes 4y ago
  agreed, a global trust chain for information seems like a pipe dream. between the publishers and wikipedia volunteers/admins, it seems like there's too many conflicting parties. i've been collecting rare/old books, its a pricey hobby, but they are often beautifully made and feels good to have something that can't be edited or revised.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    As much as it pains me to say it providing a publicly accessible audit trail that no single party can alter is one of the better use cases for blockchain.
tpm 4y ago
Always was? There is no history untainted by the historian who wrote it. Whoever owns the current interpretation of history, can change it to suit his aims. Which is a big part of the state "support" for universities and institutes of history, going back many centuries: the state power wanted to redefine history. Before them, the church. This is nothing new, I believe Foucault wrote about it extensively, but also many others. Knowledge is quite directly power. If someone would for example say that gender fluidity is a new concept with no known history, that claim would be very hard to defend because there are certainly cultures where it was present, but with carefully choosing which historians to cite, any claim can be supported. Lying by omission.
- Eumenes 4y ago
  yeah there's always been new takes on history and events but this was pre-internet. most western people get their info via internet, media, tv, podcasts, etc. i think we're in uncharted waters here and chalking it up to "its always been like this" is disingenuous. information distribution is becoming increasingly centralized and ran by a few corporations. the internet and smart phone era seems like a wet dream for propagandists.
  - tpm 4y ago
    > information distribution is becoming increasingly centralized No, exactly the opposite. It was much much more centralized before the internet: you had one or two dominant TV channels with news in each country (mostly somehow state-operated), same with radio and a few big newspapers. And the institutions where deep knowledge was produced (mostly universities) also functioned as gatekeepers for knowledge, deciding what can be dispersed and who is worthy to receive it. Internet changed that: there are no gatekeepers and distribution is free. Anyone can write and distribute anything. Now actually grabbing attention of enough people to matter is a different issue and you are right this is a big problem. But it's a different one: before it was easier to control the history-writing and publishing at the source, now that's impossible and you have to control the attention of consumers. We are on Hacker News debating an article published by Lapham's Quarterly. No big corporation in sight.
watwut 4y ago
Is it revisionist history or rather historical anecdote you want to be false for own ideological reasons?

we will absolutely lose the ability to validate the trust chain on every piece of information available trough the network. it's too late to retrofit old documents with signatures and the ability of generating everything from artiact picture to fake research document complete with fake citations (generated in full, not only in titles) will make very hard in a hundred years (or less!) to understand history before we decide to implement (if ever) a global trust chain for information.

Eumenes 4y ago
agreed, a global trust chain for information seems like a pipe dream. between the publishers and wikipedia volunteers/admins, it seems like there's too many conflicting parties. i've been collecting rare/old books, its a pricey hobby, but they are often beautifully made and feels good to have something that can't be edited or revised.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  As much as it pains me to say it providing a publicly accessible audit trail that no single party can alter is one of the better use cases for blockchain.

tpm 4y ago

Always was? There is no history untainted by the historian who wrote it. Whoever owns the current interpretation of history, can change it to suit his aims. Which is a big part of the state "support" for universities and institutes of history, going back many centuries: the state power wanted to redefine history. Before them, the church. This is nothing new, I believe Foucault wrote about it extensively, but also many others. Knowledge is quite directly power. If someone would for example say that gender fluidity is a new concept with no known history, that claim would be very hard to defend because there are certainly cultures where it was present, but with carefully choosing which historians to cite, any claim can be supported. Lying by omission.

Eumenes 4y ago
yeah there's always been new takes on history and events but this was pre-internet. most western people get their info via internet, media, tv, podcasts, etc. i think we're in uncharted waters here and chalking it up to "its always been like this" is disingenuous. information distribution is becoming increasingly centralized and ran by a few corporations. the internet and smart phone era seems like a wet dream for propagandists.
- tpm 4y ago
  > information distribution is becoming increasingly centralized No, exactly the opposite. It was much much more centralized before the internet: you had one or two dominant TV channels with news in each country (mostly somehow state-operated), same with radio and a few big newspapers. And the institutions where deep knowledge was produced (mostly universities) also functioned as gatekeepers for knowledge, deciding what can be dispersed and who is worthy to receive it. Internet changed that: there are no gatekeepers and distribution is free. Anyone can write and distribute anything. Now actually grabbing attention of enough people to matter is a different issue and you are right this is a big problem. But it's a different one: before it was easier to control the history-writing and publishing at the source, now that's impossible and you have to control the attention of consumers. We are on Hacker News debating an article published by Lapham's Quarterly. No big corporation in sight.

watwut 4y ago

Is it revisionist history or rather historical anecdote you want to be false for own ideological reasons?