3 ms·

This sounds much more like gatekeeping than genuine concern about "dangerous" content. The complaints the article mentions: - houses wouldn't have had large gl

This sounds much more like gatekeeping than genuine concern about "dangerous" content. The complaints the article mentions: - houses wouldn't have had large glazed windows - there were no trains (a train track is visible) - Vesuvius didn't start with lava spewing everywhere - stemmed wine glasses and pepper mills didn't exist - people would be reclining while eating, not sitting on dining chairs - the bread roll is a modern loaf, not an ancient one If you're going to nipick to this degree of anality then essentially any historical documentary ever made is "amateur and dangerous."

ggm 2y ago
If you spend public funds on NPR or the BBC to produce an educational resource with these kind of problems where the core message was historicity, not some other educational outcome, you'd be wasting national funds and be pilloried for it. It's contextual. Horrible Histories can make boners. some soft-ed deliverable can make boners about things, not core to the syllabus. If you call it "history" and you want to teach lived experience, then don't put tomato on the roman pizza. It's actually not that hard to get right btw. Mostly, its lazy.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  "I Claudius" is perhaps my favorite series of all time, produced by the BBC during its golden age. You might argue the core was not historicity, but then again it'd seem odd to hold the BBC to a lesser standard than a TikTok video for historical recreations. But it's extremely informative in many ways and also extremely misleading to plainly false in others. It's simply the nature of historical recreation. It did things such as rather dramatically change the widely recorded historical personality/interests/etc of Claudius, presumably to make him a more likeable 'protagonist'. And they weren't pilloried for it whatsoever but rather drowned, in praise and awards.
  - ggm 2y ago
    I Claudius was made in 1976 by BBC entertainment. It might have screened in schools but that was not it's primary purpose. But, carried into the modern era I am pretty sure historians would mutter about the many solecisms. None the less it was better than AI. Much of the history about roman times is under reconsideration in the light of things like new digs in Pompeii. People projected current social values onto what they found, DNA analysis now permits much stronger indications of filiality or patriality of the remains. "oh, this is a mother protecting her child" can turn out to be a male, and an un-related child female. How this is re-interpreted is not always clear. Likewise metallurgy can change our view of history. The huntarian museum in Glasgow University has 4 coins, held by past antiquarians and historians to be crude forgeries. They turn out from metallurgy to be real, and futhermore confirm an emperor held for a very long time to be speculative, and undocumented. We now have structural evidence of his existence. AI tiktoks aren't currently helping here. They aren't providing visuals which carry the history forward, they just project classicly bad tropes. Sure, they're entertaining. So is "gladiator" but historians had enough on their plate there.
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      This wasn't confusion or mistakes, it was intentionally manipulated for the purpose of creating a more likeable character. Claudius in the series directly contradicts many of the well known traits (and actions) of historical Claudius, such as his rather indulgent excesses in the games and love of bloodshed. But even that's way better than modern BBC 'historical' media where they have a habit of doing things like turning English royalty black. That's why all of this and then to complain about a short clip having a few mostly irrelevant mistakes (which is not to say the author should not endeavor to correct them) is so utterly transparent as gatekeeping, let alone with such utterly hyperbolic phrasing as calling it "dangerous."
      - ggm 2y ago
        Claudius is played by Derek Jacobi substantively as Robert Graves wrote him. in the 1930s. Graves wrote him as the hero. Of course he was whitewashed. So, what the BBC did is faithfully recreate the characterisation Graves wrote. And wrote, a long long time ago, before historicity was an issue. Graves wrote two books about claudius, he becomes a darker character in the last 10 pages of the second book. Graves also wrote count Belisarius about a different time in a roman story arc. He wrote for an age where many people in England spoke latin, a little, from school. He was writing for the wider audience who maybe didnt but also knew roman values existed in the english cultural landscape, because it was taught. The danger here, is autodidacts, who take this tiktok as a source of ground truth in their ideation of how the past is. We can see the effect in Vikings-have-horns story. Thats an almost entirely modern construction. It literally has no historic context, horns on helms appear in times, for decorative purposes. We knew from archeology viking helms didn't do this but Hollywood does as hollywood must. Kirk Douglas looked sexy as a viking in a helm with horns and here we are. Yes, "dangerous" is hyperbole. Everyone arguing a case uses hyperbole, rhetoric was a significant component of the cursus honarum for romans with status to enter the senate. your enemy was full of shit, literally, or more figuratively, because that was how you won. The danger is not the same as the danger of eating poisonous mushrooms, or walking in bare feet on broken glass. its rhetorical danger. Gatekeeping exists. Objections to it, tend to look very like another rhetorical objection. IF you were permitted into the gatekeeping camp, you'd do it to, and in fact, what you are doing can be said to be a function of using the gate to hold it open to every theory allowed, rather than using the gate to shut off noise. you're therefore gatekeeping too, in a different sense. keeping it open, to suit your own purposes.
camillomiller 2y ago
Are you really pushing AI apologism to the point of calling "anality" the concerns of experienced historians? How does this contribute to a reasonable discussion about the dangers of what this video might represent? I would understand (and not agree) if you said you don't think the videos are dangerous or problematic, but dismissing valid concerns from subject matter experts is just pure tech hybris. And that's quite scary, to be honest, to see how many people already subscribe to this complete lack of critical discussion on the AI video trend. These videos are viral traps made to make money. They have absolutely no historic base, and yet they are presented as such on social media. I don't care what the authors say, because that's not what 53 million people read when they just see a video that's absolutely inaccurate.

ggm 2y ago

If you spend public funds on NPR or the BBC to produce an educational resource with these kind of problems where the core message was historicity, not some other educational outcome, you'd be wasting national funds and be pilloried for it. It's contextual. Horrible Histories can make boners. some soft-ed deliverable can make boners about things, not core to the syllabus. If you call it "history" and you want to teach lived experience, then don't put tomato on the roman pizza. It's actually not that hard to get right btw. Mostly, its lazy.

somenameforme 2y ago
"I Claudius" is perhaps my favorite series of all time, produced by the BBC during its golden age. You might argue the core was not historicity, but then again it'd seem odd to hold the BBC to a lesser standard than a TikTok video for historical recreations. But it's extremely informative in many ways and also extremely misleading to plainly false in others. It's simply the nature of historical recreation. It did things such as rather dramatically change the widely recorded historical personality/interests/etc of Claudius, presumably to make him a more likeable 'protagonist'. And they weren't pilloried for it whatsoever but rather drowned, in praise and awards.
- ggm 2y ago
  I Claudius was made in 1976 by BBC entertainment. It might have screened in schools but that was not it's primary purpose. But, carried into the modern era I am pretty sure historians would mutter about the many solecisms. None the less it was better than AI. Much of the history about roman times is under reconsideration in the light of things like new digs in Pompeii. People projected current social values onto what they found, DNA analysis now permits much stronger indications of filiality or patriality of the remains. "oh, this is a mother protecting her child" can turn out to be a male, and an un-related child female. How this is re-interpreted is not always clear. Likewise metallurgy can change our view of history. The huntarian museum in Glasgow University has 4 coins, held by past antiquarians and historians to be crude forgeries. They turn out from metallurgy to be real, and futhermore confirm an emperor held for a very long time to be speculative, and undocumented. We now have structural evidence of his existence. AI tiktoks aren't currently helping here. They aren't providing visuals which carry the history forward, they just project classicly bad tropes. Sure, they're entertaining. So is "gladiator" but historians had enough on their plate there.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    This wasn't confusion or mistakes, it was intentionally manipulated for the purpose of creating a more likeable character. Claudius in the series directly contradicts many of the well known traits (and actions) of historical Claudius, such as his rather indulgent excesses in the games and love of bloodshed. But even that's way better than modern BBC 'historical' media where they have a habit of doing things like turning English royalty black. That's why all of this and then to complain about a short clip having a few mostly irrelevant mistakes (which is not to say the author should not endeavor to correct them) is so utterly transparent as gatekeeping, let alone with such utterly hyperbolic phrasing as calling it "dangerous."
    - ggm 2y ago
      Claudius is played by Derek Jacobi substantively as Robert Graves wrote him. in the 1930s. Graves wrote him as the hero. Of course he was whitewashed. So, what the BBC did is faithfully recreate the characterisation Graves wrote. And wrote, a long long time ago, before historicity was an issue. Graves wrote two books about claudius, he becomes a darker character in the last 10 pages of the second book. Graves also wrote count Belisarius about a different time in a roman story arc. He wrote for an age where many people in England spoke latin, a little, from school. He was writing for the wider audience who maybe didnt but also knew roman values existed in the english cultural landscape, because it was taught. The danger here, is autodidacts, who take this tiktok as a source of ground truth in their ideation of how the past is. We can see the effect in Vikings-have-horns story. Thats an almost entirely modern construction. It literally has no historic context, horns on helms appear in times, for decorative purposes. We knew from archeology viking helms didn't do this but Hollywood does as hollywood must. Kirk Douglas looked sexy as a viking in a helm with horns and here we are. Yes, "dangerous" is hyperbole. Everyone arguing a case uses hyperbole, rhetoric was a significant component of the cursus honarum for romans with status to enter the senate. your enemy was full of shit, literally, or more figuratively, because that was how you won. The danger is not the same as the danger of eating poisonous mushrooms, or walking in bare feet on broken glass. its rhetorical danger. Gatekeeping exists. Objections to it, tend to look very like another rhetorical objection. IF you were permitted into the gatekeeping camp, you'd do it to, and in fact, what you are doing can be said to be a function of using the gate to hold it open to every theory allowed, rather than using the gate to shut off noise. you're therefore gatekeeping too, in a different sense. keeping it open, to suit your own purposes.

camillomiller 2y ago

Are you really pushing AI apologism to the point of calling "anality" the concerns of experienced historians? How does this contribute to a reasonable discussion about the dangers of what this video might represent? I would understand (and not agree) if you said you don't think the videos are dangerous or problematic, but dismissing valid concerns from subject matter experts is just pure tech hybris. And that's quite scary, to be honest, to see how many people already subscribe to this complete lack of critical discussion on the AI video trend. These videos are viral traps made to make money. They have absolutely no historic base, and yet they are presented as such on social media. I don't care what the authors say, because that's not what 53 million people read when they just see a video that's absolutely inaccurate.