811–820 of 865 posts
History is written by the winner. So even historical "facts"... Are not facts.
I am being more and more skeptical about the internet as a whole.
The internet is owned by a couple of actors... Too sad!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's at the core of Google algorithm: page rank. It uses 'trust'. That actually maps to how we work as a society. We cannot be experts in everything, we do not have the time, ability, wherewithal. So we 'trust' certain sources: Teachers, Doctors, Lawyers, Judges, Police, more than we do others i.e. criminals, sources of gossip, arbitrary people. This is why when people form those institutions fail us, it's a much big…
Cool but who determines trust scores?
Bias and lack of integrity is not actually very hard to spot.
It's ultimately nuanced, but it's not rocket science.
The challenge is not really with institutions, there are not that many of them, but rather with social media, individuals, commenters, state actors posing as 'regular people' etc..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shouldn't it be the embassy in the Czech Republic or is it really the Ukraine embassy in Slovakia commenting on Czech law? Not trying to be difficult just generally wondering. Tried looking at the link but twitter wants me to sign up to view it.
Sorry, my mistake! I think it's in the Czech Republic (though I think slovakia did something similar too), I'm only relying on Google translate so I might be very wrong
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cool but who determines trust scores?
Is it hard to determine the difference between The National Enquirer and Nature? Bias and lack of integrity is not actually very hard to spot. It's ultimately nuanced, but it's not rocket science. The challenge is not really with institutions, there are not that many of them, but rather with social media, individuals, commenters, state actors posing as 'regular people' etc..
Try Fox News vs New York Times.
> It's ultimately nuanced, but it's not rocket science. The challenge is not really with institutions, there are not that many of them, but rather with social media, individuals, commenters, state actors posing as 'regular people' etc..
Scoring how much you trust an entity to determine the truthfulness of information they are generating is flawed.
In no way does this properly verify information’s truthfulness in and of itself.
Even scoring “Information.Source.Trust Score”, which is just a single aspect of information, is still far more difficult to do than you apparently realize. How can a human build such a score with no bias?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it hard to determine the difference between The National Enquirer and Nature? Bias and lack of integrity is not actually very hard to spot. It's ultimately nuanced, but it's not rocket science. The challenge is not really with institutions, there are not that many of them, but rather with social media, individuals, commenters, state actors posing as 'regular people' etc..
> Is it hard to determine the difference between The National Enquirer and Nature? Try Fox News vs New York Times. > It's ultimately nuanced, but it's not rocket science. The challenge is not really with institutions, there are not that many of them, but rather with social media, individuals, commenters, state actors posing as 'regular people' etc.. Scoring how much you trust an entity to determine the truthfulness o…
Also, 'editorial' vs. 'news' are actually different categories and we know what they are.
'Fox 5' - their evening show is pure gossip and innuendo - it has nothing to do with reality or the truth. Their nighthime 'personalities' are editorialists. But they do have regular news segments as well.
All of that can be categorised.
Also, the source of their bias can be roughly identified. Mostly they are a corporate entity playing to an American audience. They have some relationship with the White House on some occasions.
We can delineate.
Because it's a fairly established institution, we can also look at the other kinds of bias. And of course, each personality is different.
They are not owned and controlled by the Kremlin, or the Canadian Government as is, the CBC for example. We can delineate there.
It's really not that hard.
And FYI it's not as though there is hard censorship - you can retrieve Putins' own 'Mein Kamp-ish' rants any time with fairly easy searches.
What we don't want is bad misinformation seeping into the top of arbitrary searches etc..
If someone wants to read 'My Pillow Guy' that's fine, but his opinion on Putin is not going to come up up first when I search 'Putin', unless there's some other, factual, direct relevance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Truth is also a casualty when all truth is drowned out by a deluge of lies and nonsense. It's not as simple as you wish. You want to live in a trustless society where there needs be no curation of truth, but it's simply not practical, and it never has been.
And once again you completely ignore the problem of who gets to decide what it means to be biased or truthful? I'm sure you think you're biases are implicitly good, but there's no way in hell I would ever let you control the information that would be filtered on my screen given your ideological views
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what happens when you can't tell what "information" is true in any reasonable timeframe, making it impossible for normal people (or actually anyone at all) to discern fact from fiction? Tough titty, those people just get to believe misinformation? It's not anyone's responsibility to suppress lies? I will never agree with that position. In a better world, the truth can be identified just by reading carefully. This…
>And what happens when you can't tell what "information" is true in any reasonable timeframe, making it impossible for normal people (or actually anyone at all) to discern fact from fiction My sweet summer child... We crossed that line a long time ago. Everything is already lies and half truths. Giving one group a monopoly on “truth“ doesn't help. Every president the US has had have no problem standing in front of th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>And what happens when you can't tell what "information" is true in any reasonable timeframe, making it impossible for normal people (or actually anyone at all) to discern fact from fiction My sweet summer child... We crossed that line a long time ago. Everything is already lies and half truths. Giving one group a monopoly on “truth“ doesn't help. Every president the US has had have no problem standing in front of th…
Giving up completely doesn't help either, my sweet summer child. Pretending we can just let anyone say anything unchecked isn't actually a solution, it's a dodge because you don't want to have to trust. There's no way around having trust.
Yes there is. The alternative is open information and critical evaluation. This isn't giving up.
I consider trusting censors to decide what information can be consumed to be giving up. Blindly thinking whatever you are told is the truth.
Who do you trust to limit the information you consume?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Russia if you report the wrong thing you go to prison. The west is not remotely like Russia in this matter.
Yes, for individuals, it's worse. For accurate information, it's probably a wash, or a close call. There are so many other ways of biasing information streams than overt oppression.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, they do not claim to cover both sides: > We are the owners and administrators of several Russian non-political telegram channels. > We don't do politics. But we consider it important to provide unbiased information about what is happening in Ukraine and on the territories of Donbass, because we see signs of an information war launched against Russia. Granted, I would have liked to see a "FAKE: US funding…
How is it fake? https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/03/11/1566-m11.html
And then all of your subsequent comments seem to be extremely consistent with Russian government talking points.
You were initially kind of concerned that the invasion was not justified, but now you believe the Russian government positions whole-heartedly?
It is a very interesting transition of opinion in a short amount of time! What's up?