3 ms·

> So…some friendly government officials and security vendors but no press or members of the public ensure "the highest level of transparency" in Microsoft's boo

> So…some friendly government officials and security vendors but no press or members of the public ensure "the highest level of transparency" in Microsoft's book? Sometimes the message you need your 'partners' to receive is: "Yes, we fucked up 3 times, but over the same period you lot fucked up 100 times so we're going to severely curtail what you can do, if you don't like it tough" And if you're Linus Torvalds you can just say that in public. But if you're a business with a PR department and lawyers, and some of these partners are actually important to your business and you want to maintain a good relationship with them? Then it's probably a lot easier for you to deliver the message clearly and frankly if you do it behind closed doors.

0xEF 2y ago
That makes a bit of sense. I'm stuck in this weird place where part of me wants information to be free (read; actual transparency) but the other part of me knows I don't understand all of it and will likely misinterpret or misrepresent it alongside millions of other people and multiple media outlets that generally don't know enough about a thing to be drawing conclusions about it. Having a foot in both of those camps is exhausting. It's a conundrum.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  The world is a complicated and messy place.
- squigz 2y ago
  I would rather live in a world where information is free and we learn to deal with that rather than one where information being free is subject to whatever powerful group is in charge at that moment, whose interests will never align with citizens'
  - oarsinsync 2y ago
    > information being free is subject to whatever powerful group is in charge at that moment The mainstream media outlets dont really change hands often. The vast majority of people are already subject to the whims and biases of said media organisations. More information being available is unlikely to change that. We already can't parse the amount of information available today.
    - squigz 2y ago
      > More information being available is unlikely to change that. No, it's not. Education is though. > We already can't parse the amount of information available today. You're right, we can't. But more ignorance is hardly the solution I'd opt for.
      - HPsquared 2y ago
        Whose education, then? People can be educated in all sorts of different ways.
        squigz 2y ago
        I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Who would be educated? Everyone, I would hope. Whose education would they be given? As in, what education plan? I would say one devised by teachers and educational experts, the goal of which (in the context of this discussion) would be to educate children on things like critical thinking, media literacy, recognizing propaganda, etc.
        HPsquared 2y ago
        I mean they could be educated in something other than our standard tradition. For example someone educated in NK under the ideology of "the Juche idea" will have very different reactions to media than we would have.
      - MichaelZuo 2y ago
        Why does ‘more ignorance’ matter if the current smaller quantity is already beyond you? (And realistically for pretty much everyone, zero prospects of grasping even 90% of what’s currently available)
        squigz 2y ago
        Just because it's beyond me or you doesn't mean it's beyond everyone else. The point GP made that it seems most people have missed, is that we need to recognize that we almost always lack the necessary context and expertise to understand something. One potential response to that realization is more ignorance, yes, I suppose. Another might be looking for people with the necessary expertise to understand something and get their input on it.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > where information is free and we learn to deal with that We’ve tried that. We’re probably in the era with the greatest individual access to information in human history. It’s mostly void screaming and sound bite selecting. We should still fight for free information. But that doesn’t mean we should be forced to give up the benefits of privacy and confidential dealings.
    - hkt 2y ago
      What we have is a deficit in expert, diverse journalism. Our media landscape just isn't fit for the amount of information that's out there: ideally, a newish profession would exist that straddles academia and journalism, with more generalise than the former and more specialism than the latter. Having this would let us actually enjoy the benefits of an open society much more freely, and make use of the huge number of semi-experts that are out there in the world thanks to the advent of mass higher education.
    - squigz 2y ago
      > We’re probably in the era with the greatest individual access to information in human history. It’s mostly void screaming and sound bite selecting. I'm not sure there's much evidence to suggest these are related. It's always been like this. Just because it's easier to see that now doesn't mean we should ignore the benefits this era brought. > But that doesn’t mean we should be forced to give up the benefits of privacy and confidential dealings. I don't think anyone suggested this. > We’ve tried that. So we keep trying? Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
- spondyl 2y ago
  If you'd like a counterpoint that complete transparency is not inherently good, you might enjoy this: https://philpapers.org/archive/NGUTIS.pdf https://philpapers.org/archive/NGUTIS.pdf
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bostik 2y ago
This one sounds like a standard application of Chatham House rules[0]. No press, no snipe reporting, no out-of-context soundbites. The short version I often use about that rule: "you can quote, but you can not attribute". It's a relatively common practice among certain technology conferences. At least in the UK. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule

0xEF 2y ago

That makes a bit of sense. I'm stuck in this weird place where part of me wants information to be free (read; actual transparency) but the other part of me knows I don't understand all of it and will likely misinterpret or misrepresent it alongside millions of other people and multiple media outlets that generally don't know enough about a thing to be drawing conclusions about it. Having a foot in both of those camps is exhausting. It's a conundrum.

HPsquared 2y ago
The world is a complicated and messy place.
squigz 2y ago
I would rather live in a world where information is free and we learn to deal with that rather than one where information being free is subject to whatever powerful group is in charge at that moment, whose interests will never align with citizens'
- oarsinsync 2y ago
  > information being free is subject to whatever powerful group is in charge at that moment The mainstream media outlets dont really change hands often. The vast majority of people are already subject to the whims and biases of said media organisations. More information being available is unlikely to change that. We already can't parse the amount of information available today.
  - squigz 2y ago
    > More information being available is unlikely to change that. No, it's not. Education is though. > We already can't parse the amount of information available today. You're right, we can't. But more ignorance is hardly the solution I'd opt for.
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      Whose education, then? People can be educated in all sorts of different ways.
      - squigz 2y ago
        I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Who would be educated? Everyone, I would hope. Whose education would they be given? As in, what education plan? I would say one devised by teachers and educational experts, the goal of which (in the context of this discussion) would be to educate children on things like critical thinking, media literacy, recognizing propaganda, etc.
        HPsquared 2y ago
        I mean they could be educated in something other than our standard tradition. For example someone educated in NK under the ideology of "the Juche idea" will have very different reactions to media than we would have.
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
      Why does ‘more ignorance’ matter if the current smaller quantity is already beyond you? (And realistically for pretty much everyone, zero prospects of grasping even 90% of what’s currently available)
      - squigz 2y ago
        Just because it's beyond me or you doesn't mean it's beyond everyone else. The point GP made that it seems most people have missed, is that we need to recognize that we almost always lack the necessary context and expertise to understand something. One potential response to that realization is more ignorance, yes, I suppose. Another might be looking for people with the necessary expertise to understand something and get their input on it.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > where information is free and we learn to deal with that We’ve tried that. We’re probably in the era with the greatest individual access to information in human history. It’s mostly void screaming and sound bite selecting. We should still fight for free information. But that doesn’t mean we should be forced to give up the benefits of privacy and confidential dealings.
  - hkt 2y ago
    What we have is a deficit in expert, diverse journalism. Our media landscape just isn't fit for the amount of information that's out there: ideally, a newish profession would exist that straddles academia and journalism, with more generalise than the former and more specialism than the latter. Having this would let us actually enjoy the benefits of an open society much more freely, and make use of the huge number of semi-experts that are out there in the world thanks to the advent of mass higher education.
  - squigz 2y ago
    > We’re probably in the era with the greatest individual access to information in human history. It’s mostly void screaming and sound bite selecting. I'm not sure there's much evidence to suggest these are related. It's always been like this. Just because it's easier to see that now doesn't mean we should ignore the benefits this era brought. > But that doesn’t mean we should be forced to give up the benefits of privacy and confidential dealings. I don't think anyone suggested this. > We’ve tried that. So we keep trying? Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
spondyl 2y ago
If you'd like a counterpoint that complete transparency is not inherently good, you might enjoy this: https://philpapers.org/archive/NGUTIS.pdf https://philpapers.org/archive/NGUTIS.pdf

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

bostik 2y ago

This one sounds like a standard application of Chatham House rules[0]. No press, no snipe reporting, no out-of-context soundbites. The short version I often use about that rule: "you can quote, but you can not attribute". It's a relatively common practice among certain technology conferences. At least in the UK. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule