Terry Pratchett warns Bill Gates about fake news (1995) • Hacker News Board

Re: Terry Pratchett warns Bill Gates about fake news (1995)

#101

Post by blancheneige » Thu, May 30, 2019, 3:50 PM UTC

newsgremlin wrote: post #97

blancheneige wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Back in the past only the church and royalty had the power to spread (fake) news. How so? Do you have an example in mind? I can think of a lot of fake news or misleading propaganda deliberately disseminated by seditious and revolutionary groups during the French and American revolutions.

The church and royalty were almost always intertwined, power invested by god into the crown for divine legitimacy and thus has the power to decide what is right and wrong. The clergy also had the skills and resources to read and write, something we take for granted these days, thus control information spread at the communion. The thing about fake news is that it's only fake when proven to be so.

See my other response in this thread.

This is all very fuzzy, I was asking for concrete examples of this fake news monopoly.

Here are good counter-examples: the incessant libeling against the royalty at the time of the French revolution [1], or the distortion and propaganda surrounding the Boston massacre to taint the British monarchy [2]. Not saying this was morally right or wrong, but it contrasts with the assertion of parent poster.

[1] https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/libelles/

[2] https://theamericanscholar.org/black-lives-and-the-boston-ma...

Re: Terry Pratchett warns Bill Gates about fake news (1995)

#102

Post by astazangasta » Thu, May 30, 2019, 3:56 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #95

astazangasta wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fake news is neither about the availability of multiple perspectives, which have been around for millenia, nor about the power of the Internet, which has been around for decades, nor about misrepresentations of fact, which have been instrumental to every war the US has prosecuted in the post-WW2 period. The term "fake news" appeared, along with an obsessive need to "fact check" and censor, following the election of T…

It's funny because you're literally just parroting Trump campaign and Republican establishment propaganda. The term "fake news" did not appear after Trump's election[0], nor was it created by "liberal capitalists and Washington," nor did any of the stories deemed fake news (ie, Pizzagate, Hillary Clinton's kill count, Hillary Clinton having some neurological disorder) represent any sort of hidden truths slipping thro…

It didn't appear then, but it became a grave concern at that point. Meanwhile conspiracy theories have existed for ever. Pizzagate is nuts, but so is belief in reptilian aliens controlling governments, etc.

The energy to contain these stories escalated dramatically, with Zuckerberg being dragged in front of Congress, etc., after Trump's election.

Meanwhile the biggest "fake news" item of the past few years was Russiagate, which escaped your list along with widespread condemnation from establishment media.

I don't suggest that Pizzagate, etc., are true, merely that the sudden alarm about them is a symptom of elite anxiety.

By the way, i am not a Republican and am not parroting anything. Please don't poison the well. Just make your argument.

Re: Terry Pratchett warns Bill Gates about fake news (1995)

#103

Post by LifeLiverTransp » Thu, May 30, 2019, 3:57 PM UTC

The reason fake news can still propagate, is because we have no "Vouching" system, by which a citizen can vouch for a piece of information -or even another citizen/organisation.

Where there inheritance of trust, and one weak link in this chain, the social media plattforms would be very quiet.

Advertising - beyond local, would not be seen. Seeing all content equally, would be a active choice against this model.

The truth is, we could return to this medieval world, where the wise men vouch for information given, or proofs of work vouch for the information, or publishers pay you a cent for reading.

But the powers that be would be undone by this. Thus it will not happen, unless integrated sneakily into a add blocker.

Re: Terry Pratchett warns Bill Gates about fake news (1995)

#104

Post by r00fus » Thu, May 30, 2019, 3:58 PM UTC

gregmac wrote: post #31

hirundo wrote: post #7

> Captioning his find, Burrows said that the fantasy writer had “accurately predicted how the internet would propagate and legitimise fake news” It's like when you have one clock, you know what time it is. When you have two clocks they're always somewhat different, and so you're no longer certain of the time, and have less faith in clocks. Fake news has always been with us and the internet just propagates it along wi…

Building on that analogy, the trouble with one clock is you only know what time it is if it's correct . If you take the time to verify and/or set it against an accurate time source, then this is no problem. However, it seems more and more people are skipping that verification step, and just assuming the clock is right. When presented with two conflicting clocks, instead of questioning what's going on and trying to fi…

It’s a bit more pernicious than a single clock that’s off.

It’s a group of clocks claiming time is significantly off and that the “other clock group” is the wrong bunch.

That gets very convincing quickly.

Re: Terry Pratchett warns Bill Gates about fake news (1995)

#105

Post by darkpuma » Thu, May 30, 2019, 3:59 PM UTC

harry8 wrote: post #49

metalchianti wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a fantastic analogy. With so many sources available--mainstream and other--we now have opportunities to get a holistic picture by relying on many different narratives. However, technology also makes it easier for people to seek out sources that support preconceived biases.

Really? You have clocks you know to be right and clocks you know aren't. Sadly the same can't be said of news sources. The New York Times is probably the best newspaper in the world. And sometimes they do fake news. Do it regularly. And they bitch about the internet being the problem. It isn't. The problem for them is they get caught out in ways that we find out about now. We used not to. When a big story breaks, set…

The stuff that [we're aware that] New York Times gets wrong in the modern era barely even holds a candle to what they got wrong in the past.

Particularly the case where the NYT was publishing Soviet genocide denying propaganda as though it were fact. The responsible "journalist", Walter Duranty, even won a Pulitzer Prize for his service as Stalin's uncritical mouthpiece. The NYT didn't denounce him publicly until 1990. For decades, Holodomor denial in the west was defended and perpetuate by people citing the New York Times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Holodomor#Denial...

Re: Terry Pratchett warns Bill Gates about fake news (1995)

#106

Post by jahewson » Thu, May 30, 2019, 4:04 PM UTC

ljf wrote: post #42

moomin wrote: post #30

I remember many years ago a journalist at The Register asking Tim Berners-Lee how his semantic web proposals were going to deal with spam. TBL again, just didn’t get it, because he didn’t see the world through a social lens. The problem of “tag spam” was already pretty prevalent when the question was asked. Same article has Bill Gates completely correctly predict the death of VHS and DVD and them being supplanted by…

I read years ago - that Bills Gates/Microsoft backed HD-DVD as a disrupter for Blu-ray - betting in the long term that video streaming would win out - but not wanting Blu-ray to get too much of a handhold.

> too much of a handhold

A foothold?

Re: Terry Pratchett warns Bill Gates about fake news (1995)

#107

Post by manfredo » Thu, May 30, 2019, 4:06 PM UTC

blancheneige wrote: post #94

manfredo wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The church and royalty had power to arbitrarily execute those that spoke out against them. Inquisition against heretics is one example.

You're stretching the definition of fake news to encompass instances that would otherwise not fit. Parent also states that only the church and the royalty had such power. If we are going to extend the definition of fake news to include defamation and false accusations, then the church hardly had a monopoly on the matter since they often responded to such allegations when spread by the commoners. The overwhelming majo…

I suppose if you're really want to be pedantic this wasn't completely limited to the church and monarchs. If enough people in a village wanted to suppress some information, or promulgate some falsehood, they could intimidate others into compliance. Plenty of Italian city-states had power structures more centered around wealthy merchants rather than nobility. So sure, it wasn't entirely limited to the church and nobility. But the church and nobility were undoubtedly in the most effective positions to carry out such deception.

The key observation is that when communication technology is primitive, then the ability to spread information is limited to a handful of people. Namely, those that either have the social position to spread their interpretation of the world and what is happening in it, or those that have the power to intimidate and force people into silence or compliance. Throughout much of history, this was religion (easy to spread information when people go to one of your institutions every Sunday, and your priests make up a huge portion of literate society) and the nobility (you control the armed forces and have more or less unilateral control over employment them).

And on a side note, I don't see why false accusations of crime or violation of social norms don't count as fake news. Such accusations are probably some of the most common instances of fake news.

Re: Terry Pratchett warns Bill Gates about fake news (1995)

#108

Post by krapp » Thu, May 30, 2019, 4:09 PM UTC

astazangasta wrote: post #102

krapp wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny because you're literally just parroting Trump campaign and Republican establishment propaganda. The term "fake news" did not appear after Trump's election[0], nor was it created by "liberal capitalists and Washington," nor did any of the stories deemed fake news (ie, Pizzagate, Hillary Clinton's kill count, Hillary Clinton having some neurological disorder) represent any sort of hidden truths slipping thro…

It didn't appear then, but it became a grave concern at that point. Meanwhile conspiracy theories have existed for ever. Pizzagate is nuts, but so is belief in reptilian aliens controlling governments, etc. The energy to contain these stories escalated dramatically, with Zuckerberg being dragged in front of Congress, etc., after Trump's election. Meanwhile the biggest "fake news" item of the past few years was Russia…

You may not be a Republican, but you are nonetheless parroting their propaganda.

Linking the phenomenon of fake news with a liberal media conspiracy while downplaying or discrediting any connection it had with Trump's campaign and his supporters is parroting their propaganda.

>Meanwhile the biggest "fake news" item of the past few years was Russiagate, which escaped your list along with widespread condemnation from establishment media.

Because my list was of items which occurred prior to Trump's election, establishing a basis for the origin of the term. And it has yet to be established to what degree Russiagate is fake news, although your attempt to dismiss through equivocation is recognized. For someone who's not a Republican, you're really good at their techniques and talking points, though. Mention liberal sour grapes or the deep state next, maybe you'll get bingo.

The sudden alarm about Pizzagate, Zuckerberg and fake news is not a symptom of "elite" anxiety, but public anxiety over the sudden weight of influence that conspiracy theories and lies once relegated to the likes of 4chan and Reddit seem to have to influence the public. There is no secret cabal of liberal globalist elites who are harmed by any of this, it's only the public and their ability to discern the truth that's harmed.

Re: Terry Pratchett warns Bill Gates about fake news (1995)

#109

Post by smacktoward » Thu, May 30, 2019, 4:15 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #33

hirundo wrote: post #7

> Captioning his find, Burrows said that the fantasy writer had “accurately predicted how the internet would propagate and legitimise fake news” It's like when you have one clock, you know what time it is. When you have two clocks they're always somewhat different, and so you're no longer certain of the time, and have less faith in clocks. Fake news has always been with us and the internet just propagates it along wi…

> Fake news has always been with us and the internet just propagates it along with everything else. Contrary to the claim that the internet legitimized it, it made us more aware of how common it is, delegitimizing all news sources in the way that multiple clocks delegitimize clocks. It's also that those in power would love it for their opinions to be the "authoritative" ones and only ones permitted to be heard. Same…

The problem is that we've gone beyond voicing criticism to constructing parallel, unconnected realities. It's not like there's one side praising the Vietnam War and another side criticizing it, it's like there's one side saying "hey, there's a war going on in Vietnam" and another side saying "no there isn't." And the "no there isn't" side can burrow comfortably into a huge mass of media telling them that their reality is the true one and everyone else is delusional, which makes it impossible to bring them around no matter how much evidence you marshal. "Here's a photo of a Vietnamese villager we burned with napalm." "Pffft. Photoshop." "Here's some footage of Vietnamese fighters in battle with American soldiers." "Pffft. Crisis actors."

Democracy needs to provide room for criticism, absolutely. But it also requires everybody to be operating from some kind of baseline consensus as to what's real and what isn't, or at least some openness to having your mind changed by evidence.

Re: Terry Pratchett warns Bill Gates about fake news (1995)

#110

Post by boomboomsubban » Thu, May 30, 2019, 4:16 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #33

hirundo wrote: post #7

> Captioning his find, Burrows said that the fantasy writer had “accurately predicted how the internet would propagate and legitimise fake news” It's like when you have one clock, you know what time it is. When you have two clocks they're always somewhat different, and so you're no longer certain of the time, and have less faith in clocks. Fake news has always been with us and the internet just propagates it along wi…

> Fake news has always been with us and the internet just propagates it along with everything else. Contrary to the claim that the internet legitimized it, it made us more aware of how common it is, delegitimizing all news sources in the way that multiple clocks delegitimize clocks. It's also that those in power would love it for their opinions to be the "authoritative" ones and only ones permitted to be heard. Same…

>Imagine everybody being able to criticize the Vietnam War in the sixties, or e.g. segregation in the 40s, or prohibition in the 20s, or the war on drugs in the 80s, or McCarthyism, on a platform that could get equal eyeballs as the Time or TIME LIFE or NYT. All those critiques would be discarded as "fake news", "propaganda" and so on too (in fact whatever little was, e.g. in underground papers and so on, got exactly those labels).

People were able to express those opinions, there were tons of publishers putting out independent papers, pamphlets and books. They didn't have the same reach as something like the New York Times, but I don't think the internet provides an equal amount of eyeballs either. It's easier to access now, but it's also easier to access something like the NYT.

And this same thing has been going on for centuries. Practically the same post was written about the Sans-culottes.