How Killing the Internet Helped Revolutionaries 90
An anonymous reader writes "In a widely circulated American Political Science Association conference paper, Yale scholar Navid Hassanpour argues that shutting down the internet made things difficult for sustaining a centralized revolutionary movement in Egypt. But, he adds, the shutdown actually encouraged the development of smaller revolutionary uprisings at local levels where the face-to-face interaction between activists was more intense and the mobilization of inactive lukewarm dissidents was easier. In other words, closing down the internet made the revolution more diffuse and more difficult for the authorities to contain."
As long as we're on the subject, reader lecheiron points out news of research into predicting revolutions by feeding millions of news articles into a supercomputer and using word analysis to chart national sentiment. So far it's pretty good at predicting things that have already happened, but we should probably wait until it finds something new before contacting Hari Seldon.
Doesn't take a PhD to predict uprisings... (Score:0)
Just hit Google News with the phrase "after Friday prayers"
Of course, that will probably return a million hits on whatever the latest public disruption is, so instead limit the search to a one or two week window. Then search the previous couple weeks, and the previous couple weeks. It won't take long at all so see a solid and lengthy trend forming...
Re:Doesn't take a PhD to predict uprisings... (Score:2)
Taht's well and good (though sadly incomplete) for Mideast nations, but what of places like, say...
* mostly Hindu India ...and etc ?
* mostly Catholic Philippines, ]South America , Ireland, etc.
* mostly Atheist/Confucian/Buddhist China
* mostly Animistic or mixed-religion nations throughout Africa
* mostly Protestant UK,
May want to skip the whole prayer thing altogether once you start considering that many movements (esp. those of the left-leaning ideological persuasion ) are pretty much religion-free.
Props on the Foundation reference in TFS, though.
Re:Doesn't take a PhD to predict uprisings... (Score:0)
It's no surprise that people who congregate can be threats to an oppressive regime. In societies with particular fearful rulers weekly prayers (mass, temple, etc) would be the only public meetings not easily suppressed. Stalin got away with it, and it's said that Hitler bought out the ones he couldn't bully. The regimes that don't fully suppress religion (or other gatherings, even sports), can find those places as ignition to chaos, and even committed atheists might find the time to attend the only meeting they can.
However, studies have shown that many 'on the left' are likely even christian enough for your standards, claiming as you do is just lousy. Rather than saying rude things online, maybe you can go beat your children. As we all know that tea baggers are apt for it (or so I've heard).
Re:Doesn't take a PhD to predict uprisings... (Score:2)
It's no surprise that people who congregate can be threats to an oppressive regime. In societies with particular fearful rulers weekly prayers (mass, temple, etc) would be the only public meetings not easily suppressed. Stalin got away with it, and it's said that Hitler bought out the ones he couldn't bully. The regimes that don't fully suppress religion (or other gatherings, even sports), can find those places as ignition to chaos, and even committed atheists might find the time to attend the only meeting they can.
Good point, but you yourself missed something overall: Certainly, atheists may congregate under the guise of prayer or such, but we were talking about monitoring news trends. If all you do is have your software eyeball prayer meetings (esp. just those phrased towards the Islamic Friday prayers, since Christians do it on Sunday and others do it whenever), you're going to miss it - which was my entire point.
Even if you're just eyeballing public meetings, you're going to miss it - most revolutionary meetings nowadays are going to be clandestine, and outside of Islam, aren't necessarily going to be centered around praying.
But sure, get all butt-hurt and lash out - there's a kernel of good idea in your first post, but you're still doing it all *wrong* by focusing on only one tiny aspect of a much larger picture.
Re:Doesn't take a PhD to predict uprisings... (Score:2)
I don't know about the rest, but the UK is easy: revolution will never happen there. There's never even been anything close to a successful revolution there, and the inhabitants now probably couldn't even imagine such a thing. IIRC, the last "revolution" there was the Northern Rebellion and Pilgrimage of Grace during Henry VIII's reign, and that wasn't much of a revolt, they mainly were just protesting, and then they were such sheep that they were easily slaughtered by the King's soldiers after they naively believed his lies about establishing a special Parliament to hear their grievances about the dissolution of the monasteries. That was almost half a millennium ago.
It doesn't matter what their government does to them, the English people will never revolt.
Re:Doesn't take a PhD to predict uprisings... (Score:0)
Re:Doesn't take a PhD to predict uprisings... (Score:2)
Point of order: Northern Ireland is officially considered to be part of the UK, no?
Re:Doesn't take a PhD to predict uprisings... (Score:2)
Well, that's true, but it's a pretty small part of it. I'm really talking about the main island (Great Britain); Northern Ireland is definitely an exception.
Just give it a little thought (Score:5, Funny)
Just like the Declaration of Independence (Score:5, Informative)
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
It's been recognized for generations that people won't rebel against a government for light reasons. As long as people have food and jobs to keep them busy, they'll tolerate quite a bit of oppression.
Re:Just like the Declaration of Independence (Score:2, Interesting)
The thing is, the Internet is both a "bread and circuses" sort of distraction and - to a younger generation (and to use Western generational/cultural identifiers, because those are the only ones I know), the Internet is more than what "TV" was to their Boomer parents. It's more akin to what "church" was to their Silent grandparents: where everybody goes to interact, not merely distract. Governments, typically being composed of older-generation folks, don't seem to understand that yet.
Hence, the meme that started with the Egyptian riots: If the government shuts down your internet [tumblr.com], shut down your government. [stabilitees.com]
Re:Just like the Declaration of Independence (Score:1)
The internet was the least of their concerns, Egypt had a secret police department similar to the Nazi's... usually when something like this happens, revolt is next, see in America, you can sit on your couch and fear the FBI will bust in and take w/e they came for and take you to jail... not a torture chamber, if your going to die because of your government, might as well do something about it right?
Re:Just like the Declaration of Independence (Score:0)
see in America, you can sit on your couch and fear the FBI will bust in and take w/e they came for and take you to jail... not a torture chamber
Right, the enhanced interrogation chamber is like going to Club Med. Only a few of the Muslims rounded up right after 9/11 have talked about what happened. These people disappeared and were treated horribly. No one ever was held accountable, so I know it will happen again. Likely, I'm a white male, so I'm probably safe.
Re:Just like the Declaration of Independence (Score:2)
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
It's been recognized for generations that people won't rebel against a government for light reasons. As long as people have food and jobs to keep them busy, they'll tolerate quite a bit of oppression.
Indeed -- I think governments in general need a large, complacent middle class, and the Democrats were well on the way to achieving it in the US, until it was undermined by Nixon and the rest of the neo-conservatives who followed after him. Too bad, really -- if the current crop of paleocons and Christian dominionist nutbars have their way, they are going to dismantle all the things that have helped create that large, complacent middle class. If they are successful, America will step off the world stage, and be remembered as only a failed experiment in democracy.
Re:Just like the Declaration of Independence (Score:2)
Anyway, at the time, we had the very wealthy - large plantation owners, the very poor - slaves, indentured servants and the like, and a large middle class made up of independent businessmen and the help they hired. That held true up until the 20th century, when the government decided that it needed to become involved in the business of redistributing the wealth as a reaction to the extreme wealth created by the industrial revolution, largely due to a fad regarding Marx, Engels and such.
The post-WWII boom wasn't created by the policies of Wilson, FDR, LBJ or whatever progressive hero you have, it was created by the simple fact that most of the factories in the rest of the industrial world were destroyed by war and Europe, Eastern Asia and the like had to rely on the unscathed factories of the United States and Canada to rebuild. It was only natural that, as the manufacturing capacity of Europe and Asia were rebuilt, that the United States would decline. You've been trained to blaim the policies of Nixon, but it was simply the duration of the rebound of the first world economy outside of the Americas.
What we had done in the meantime, was create numerous entitlement programs which, especially regarding the Great Society, were unsustainable. Specifically in the case of the Great Society, with welfare, Medicaid, Medicare and the like, Congress decided to raid the Social Security Trust Fund (via an Amendment in 1967) to paper over the huge costs, which had far exceeded CBO projections prior to passage. The truth is, in addition to taxes, inflation, and bonds, Congress was raiding the other "lock boxed" source of income, largely so they could continue to lie to people, telling us that we could afford something they already knew would bankrupt us. They lied and they were either retired or dead before people began to catch on - but they got to stay in office longer, having duped the masses.
So, by all means, blame Nixon. Blame Ford, Reagan, Bush and Bush if you want to... but be sure to blame Obama, Clinton, Carter, LBJ, JFK, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, Hoover, Wilson and TR too, since they all contributed to our current problems in their own way. Don't be a partisan hack and pretend all the problems fall on one side or even one President, because they were all involved. More importantly, don't forget their Congresses, since the President can't introduce legislation on their own and all spending, in particular, must originate in the House.
Be sure to blame the unions too... for demanding more than what was responsible in the long term, but like the 1967 Congress that authorized raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, blame the union leadership for cashing in on what they knew was unsustainable so they could maintain and grow their own power, influence and pocketbooks. Likewise, blame the executives that capitulated to them.
Under the guise of redistribution of wealth, you end up with two classes - the rich that have the money to defend themselves, and the poor, who demand everything from anyone else. It's the middle class, which has enough money to provide for themselves but not enough money to defend themselves, that suffer from the powers that demanding wealth redistribution, be it the government or the special interest groups that advocate it. It's also the natural result of converting the government from a body solely meant to protect our rights into a body out to seek reparations from one group on behalf of another.
Re:Just like the Declaration of Independence (Score:2)
Cuba's been extremely successful with this, as has southern Mexico. Liquor prices are suspiciously low in both countries. Hell, if Oaxaca (s. mexico) stopped protesting about being oppressed, they might get worried they were planning some big revolution.
Re:Just give it a little thought (Score:3, Insightful)
Still, there is a slow momentum of dissatisfaction with the US government and the current state of social affairs. It is being shown in various ways - the rise of the TEA party. Even though Pelosi, et al, may think this is not a grass roots movement, it is. The back and forth issue with Prop 8 in California. The rise in CCW licenses and survivalist purchases (food storage and other things). Roaming, violent flash mobs. The growing popularity of libertarianism. All these things say to me that there is a movement afoot.
None of the sides have been able to grab the populace's attention long enough to make a sustained effort to gain control and move this ship in one direction or another. The Dems made strides in 2006 because of massive dissatisfaction with Bush and his policies. Obama was elected on this wave. He was such an atrociously bad leader the Dems were thrown out in 2010 and Obama will likely (hopefully) be thrown out in 2012. But who's to say that even if the Repubs gain any control in the House, that the tide won't shift back to the Dems in 2014? It seems this pendulum is swinging farther in either direction instead of slowing down to a centrist point so that our leaders can agree on some things and make our society progress.
Re:Just give it a little thought (Score:1)
It seems this pendulum is swinging farther in either direction instead of slowing down to a centrist point so that our leaders can agree on some things and make our society progress.
This demonstrates the weakness of our two party system. When people are dissatisfied with both parties, they really have nowhere else to turn. So they simply turn against whichever of the two has pissed them off most recently. In communist nations, you can vote, but there's only one party to vote for. In America, there's two which really aren't that far apart on most things, despite their efforts to play up and play on each other's minor differences, making us only slightly more democratic...
Comment removed (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Just give it a little thought (Score:0)
I do have to disagree about the Tea Party Express being the only one in town. There is also the FreedomWorks which seem a little misguided to me. Plus every state has some variant of 2 or 3 tea party factions. Yes, TPE is one of the bigger ones out there, but they haven't been able to convince Palin to run.
Re:Just give it a little thought (Score:0)
Re:Just give it a little thought (Score:0)
No you won't. You will find alternate ways to kill your time.
Re:Just give it a little thought (Score:2)
Exactly.
People will be perfectly content with whatever happens, so long as they have their Feelies and Orgy Porgies. The government doesn't need to burn books when no one bothers to read them in the first place.
Re:Just give it a little thought (Score:2)
Feelies and Orgy Porgies
"feelies and orgy porgies"???
Do you also yell at the kids to get off off of your lawn too, Ozzie Nelson?
Re:Just give it a little thought (Score:2)
Brave New World reference, guy.
Re:Just give it a little thought (Score:2)
Re:Just give it a little thought (Score:2)
Amazon's all over that shit.
Re:Just give it a little thought (Score:4, Insightful)
The government DID turn off my recreation, and is more than happy to incarcerate me for years on end if I just try to have a little fun. From my point of view, there's very little difference between America banning Cannabis and Iran banning western music/TV.
Here Here (Score:1)
Re:Just give it a little thought (Score:2)
The difference is that they ban both, and more.
Re:Just give it a little thought (Score:2)
I'd be up in arms pounding on my congressman's door
I don't actually know where my congressman's door is, and without the internet I'm not sure I'd be able to find it.
Re:Just give it a little thought (Score:2)
Sounds like a very empty and shallow life if porn and tv shows are the most important things you have.
Pitchfork at the ready (Score:5, Interesting)
If some supercomputer analyzed my public writings, it would recognize that I've been keeping the pitchfork I made out of the old plowshare handy by the back door for some time now. I ate the oxen quite a while back when Monsanto took my fields away, so it's not like I had any other use for it.
Re:Pitchfork at the ready (Score:2)
Pitchforks are less effective against predator drones than you'd imagine. Soon the cost of predators will be so low the US government will have one available to kill every single citizen, should the need arise.
Re:Pitchfork at the ready (Score:2)
Ah, but that means every single citizen will be able to afford a predator drone of their own!
Re:Pitchfork at the ready (Score:1)
Ah, but that means every single citizen will be able to afford a predator drone of their own!
This, in a nutshell, is the serious problem society faces today. Our technology is advancing to the point where individuals can gain power one reserved for nation states. The feared "doomsday weapon" isn't going to be deployed by some trigger happy Cold War general or military accident, it's going to be deployed by someone extremist in his garage.
Re:Pitchfork at the ready (Score:2)
Unless they decide that drones don't fall under the second amendment.
Re:Pitchfork at the ready (Score:1)
Re:Pitchfork at the ready (Score:0)
The "criminal element" in totalitarian and authoritarian societies tend to be co-opted by the powers very early on. It is much more profitable for the criminals to cooperate with the oppressive government than with the oppressed citizens. There are too many examples to count, and it is sometimes hard to tell the "criminal" contingent from the government officials. BTW, the same works in democracies as well, only less openly. You may have heard that Vova Puten and Silvio Berlusconi owe their beautiful relationship to the hard work of high-ranking FSB officials and mafia dons. But forget Europe and Asia, who armed the famous US anti-British rebellion? Criminals or France?
So, no, you're very wrong. If it comes to rebelling and provision of weapons for the said rebels, you can be reasonably sure that the only somewhat reliable source of weaponry for the anti-government groups would be a foreign power that has political reasons, will and means to oppose the regime in question. Of course, the goals of such power will rarely match with the goals of the rebels.
Case in point - current events in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt - where the rebels were funded by NATO countries, but actually what is happening is that relatively moderate or outright secular Islamic dictatorships are being replaced by "republics" that embrace Sharia laws.
Re:Pitchfork at the ready (Score:0)
Monsanto should be burned down. Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvGddgHRQyg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-ouf_gmA5o
Human Machine (Score:0)
I predict a revolution in the USA before 2013. Let's see if their supercomputer agrees and if I'm right...
Re:Human Machine (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Human Machine (Score:2)
FUCK! (Score:0)
FUCK YEAG!
Predicting the future that you can affect (Score:2)
Unless you have a monopoly of that technology and don't use it to predict if your population will revolt, it would not give accurate predictions, as if he predicts something dangerous you will take measures to avoid it. That puts that kind of technology in a gray-to-dark area. Are them instruments of opression for your population or of allied countries? Or to attack/unstabilize another countries if they don't warn about that upcoming events?
If you guess the future and do nothing about it you are somewhat safe, but if know the future and can affect it, weird things like killer blue butterflies happens.
Re:Predicting the future that you can affect (Score:2)
It's not even really predicting anything.
*PEOPLE* write those articles. People. People know when shit is hitting the fan. People write about shit hitting the fan escalating to larger shit hitting the fan. That's not a computer predicting anything, that's just a computer reading the news and noticing when *PEOPLE* are writing about escalations in shit-fan collisions in certain areas.
Absolutely none of it is surprising. Most people have been waiting for this to happen in the Middle East for quite some time. The only shocking thing is that Iran is still Iran, honestly.
Re:Predicting the future that you can affect (Score:4, Insightful)
And once oppressive governments try to use such predictions to suppress revolutions, the people will learn to adapt and alter their public speech. For instance, after decades of government control of the media, Egyptians were able to use social networking to vent their frustrations. As governments try to suppress/infiltrate social networking, people will turn to other strategies.
Re:Predicting the future that you can affect (Score:2)
Take away the distractions... (Score:2)
Shutting down the internet had other results (Score:3)
Re:Shutting down the internet had other results (Score:2)
I suppose. Then again we can see what the state of this 'revolution' has gotten. The fast goosestep towards a theocracy.
Re:Shutting down the internet had other results (Score:2)
Not surprising as it was likely the most authoritarian of the groups involved. As such, they are likely to be fastest at getting organized.
This is why the Right always seems to have a more coherent direction then the Left, as your more likely to find people accepting authoritarian control there.
Eheh, right (Score:2)
Right: tea party.
Left: Chinese communist party.
Let them both run a country for a while and see how well each country does.
Start date: 2012.
Re:Eheh, right (Score:0)
Who's going to keep score? China's doing pretty well by my book: company poisons a lot of little kids, CEO gets a bullet to the head billed to their family.
If a company here did that, the company'd be fined a few million bucks (and would raise prices to compensate), the lawyers of the parents would make out like bandits, and assuming the CEO decided to leave voluntarily, he'd take his 50 mil golden parachute with him, and probably move on to the FDA where he'll argue that high standards are communist and killing our companies.
You know why (Score:-1)
Far
We've been travelling far
Without a home
But not without a star
Free
Only want to be free
We huddle close
Hang on to a dream
On the boats and on the planes
They're coming to America
Never looking back again
They're coming to America
Home, don't it seem so far away
Oh, we're travelling light today
In the eye of the storm
In the eye of the storm
Home, to a new and a shiny place
Make our bed, and we'll say our grace
Freedom's light burning warm
Freedom's light burning warm
Everywhere around the world
They're coming to America
Every time that flag's unfurled
They're coming to America
Got a dream to take them there
They're coming to America
Got a dream they've come to share
They're coming to America
They're coming to America
They're coming to America
They're coming to America
They're coming to America
Today, today, today, today, today
My country 'tis of thee
(Today)
Sweet land of liberty
(today)
Of thee I sing
(today)
Of thee I sing
(today)
(today)
(today)
(today
We're seeing this with the BART protests (Score:2)
If BART had left the cellphone repeaters on during the first protest, most of us would have all forgotten about it by now.
As it stands, there are now protests planned every single week into the indefinite future.
Not being able to communicate with their phones has not, it seems, prevented the protestors from using the calendar function on their phones...
Re:We're seeing this with the BART protests (Score:2)
It's very similar to and closely related to the Streisand effect. [wikipedia.org]
Not the Internet as much as people being angey (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not the Internet as much as people being angey (Score:2)
Agreed.
I've also heard it claimed (On the TV-show Kobra on Swedish public service TV), that it would be more accurate to say these were Al Jazeera revolutions rather than Twitter- or Facebook- or Internet-revolutions, in that access to real journalism (People from the US might want to check out the BBC for an example of what I'm talking about) for the masses had a bigger impact than the speedier communications of whatever percentage of people that would Facebook or Twitter.
I don't know, but it does sound like a reasonable claim to me.
Re:Not the Internet as much as people being angey (Score:0)
Absolutely. For the Russians, it was Samizdat ("self-publishing" via fax machines). For American Revolutionaries it was snail-mail via the postal service...the 18th century's version of the 'net.
sr
Re:Not the Internet as much as people being angey (Score:0)
Shutting the internet was a catalyst to escalate the situation as the article states, that it was not a reason is obvious to everyone here.
Am i the only one who misread that... (Score:0)
As "how the internet helped killing revolutionaries"?
What doesn't kill you... (Score:2)
...you know the rest.
Re:What doesn't kill you... (Score:2)
...you know the rest.
Maims you? Scars you? Pushes you over the edge? Makes you a chronic depressive? Cuts off all your limbs, then tortures and kills your family in front of your eyes? Leaves you in a vegetative state? What!?
(ps. I know. I just think it's a silly saying.)
Re:What doesn't kill you... (Score:2)
I don't think the saying is meant to be a universal principle, just a saying. In this case, it's perfectly applicable. Shutting off the internet (long enough to round up the perpetrators) may have killed the movement if it hadn't already reached critical mass; instead the organizers adapted and became stronger for it.
Re:What doesn't kill you... (Score:1)
and that which doesn't make you stronger...
Re:What doesn't kill you... (Score:2)
...may still cost you everything that makes it worth living.
Re:What doesn't kill you... (Score:2)
Then for all intents and purposes, it killed you.
Re:What doesn't kill you... (Score:1)
Hmmm ... laziness doesn't kill you. Does it make you stronger?
Re:What doesn't kill you... (Score:2)
Conservation of energy can have its advantages; but laziness is not an external force. For instance, I would call the intellectual laziness of the unoriginal rejoinders to my comment to be more of a character flaw.
Agree but there's no black or white. (Score:3)
In reality really pissed off people will find a way to fight back. Taking a step back here, ultimately cutting off the communication network is not going to do much because that is not the actual cause, rather a mildly helpful catalyst. It's just an easy target for whoever needs to be seen to doing something, and is getting rather desperate.
Hell, if they cut of my slashdots I'd riot harder.
Ultimately a savvy dictatorship would use internet, the internet after all doesn't care what it's used for it just pipes your data. Certainly governments and influential organisations, political movements etc use misinformation on the internet and it's useful idiot syndrome to great affect (see Fox news lol).
Secretly we all know that facebook, twitter and anything blackberry is actually kind of crap. It's just that everyone else is on them, and they seem to work well enough. There's still no substitution for old school word of mouth for your little uprising, which by some measures is more effective. They can't switch that off.
Awesome concept (Score:3, Interesting)
Even pondering this kind of gently contrarion (as opposed to deliberately provocative or 'egdy') research demonstrates more curiousity and academic honesty than a lot of tenured people show in their entire lives.
This is the plot of the movie Paycheck (Score:0)
This is the plot of the movie Paycheck where *spoiler* they discover a way to see the future, but it turns out acting on this future information is what actually causes it.
That is the unfortunate thing that will happen should too much weight be given to studies like this. Imagine more proactive military conflicts based on "negative sentiment." Sure Afghanistan and Iraq are probably better off without their numbskull leaders, but so would North Korea, but nobody seems to want to touch that. I'm fairly certain that the North Koreans are only happy because they are being told they are happy.
Nothing to do. Let's fight. (Score:0)
It seems like turning off the Internet would be like taking away a pacifier. No FaceSpace posting, you're pissed, your neighbors are out in the street. You join them.
I saw something about how they actually arranged a sporting event to be live (when it was originally not intended to be live) to get people off the streets in San Francisco one time.
It's the same idea. The authorities saw the Inernet as an organizing tool; and it is. It's also a pacifier. It seems like those governments were doomed no matter what.
I live in Tunisia... (Score:4, Informative)
Predictably, those who used to watch football every Sunday suddenly had nothing to do, and those who were preparing for exams found themselves in holidays... Why not join the riots?
Re:I live in Tunisia... (Score:0)
Shows you how much people can do when the gov' take internet porn away from them
In one word... (Score:0)
brillant!
spon7ge (Score:-1)
Say what???? (Score:2)
So far it's pretty good at predicting things that have already happened
Just how does that qualify as "prediction"?
Re:Say what???? (Score:0)
The same way that modeling weather systems qualify. You build a model and tweak it till it gives the correct result, then claim it's good for prediction. If what is being predicted based on new data is similar enough to what happened before, your model might actually give a good prediction. Hard to know until it's been used a lot of times whether it's actually useful for prediction.
Re:Say what???? (Score:2)
Of course it's good at "predicting" previous events, that's what it was designed to to (and/or was trained by analyzing previous events). If it wasn't good at it, it would be a terrible model. That's not prediction, that's analysis and training. I predict the NYSE will crash on a Monday in Oct 1929, and again on a Monday in Oct 1987. I predict Germany will be on the losing side in both world wars. I predict MS Windows will take 90% of the desktop market despite the Apple Macintosh having nearly a 2 year lead in the market for GUIs and a commanding lead selling Apple IIs in the education market. Wow, I'm better than Nostradamus.
You want to impress me, design and train a system using only knowledge of events prior to 1990, then show me how effective it is at predicting events from 1990 to now using only information available prior to the event it's predicting (you can change 1990 to 2000 or 2005 if that helps). How long before an event does it predict that something is likely? What's the time window of the prediction? How specific are the predictions? What's the accuracy rate?
Weather forecasting is pretty specific, Mostly sunny with a 30% chance of rain in xx area, high temperature of 89F, low of 62F. They're only useful out to about 10 days, but they're pretty accurate and specific. Storm forecasts are (amount of rain, snow, wind speed, hail/size, etc) aren't quite as accurate or specific as the temperature and cloud predictions, and their still pretty reliable, but on a shorter time scale. We've got good (but definitely not perfect) models for near term weather forecasting.
Re:Say what???? (Score:0)
If you had run the program before the event, it would have predicted something was about to happen.. You can test this by only giving it the data up to when the event started. This gives us the conclusion that since it would have predicted the riots, that it may be able to do so in the future.
But you knew that. I'm guessing you understood completely, and just wanted to be a pedantic ass.
Re:Say what???? (Score:2)
That's only valid if the designers only used events and data available prior to that event in their design and training of the model. Using knowledge of later events in the design of the model means it's already being "informed by" the future, so even if you retroactively give it only data prior to a past event, the model itself is influenced by future events. Since it's not really possible to keep well known events that occur prior to the design of the model from influencing it's design, and it might not be possible to keep events that occur after design but during implementation from influencing the implementation, you can't use it's accuracy at predicting any events prior to it's completion to test it's ability to predict.
So, you're correct that I understood, and you're completely incorrect about drawing any conclusions from it's ability to "predict" past events based upon feeding it only info prior to the data of the event. Such systems can only be tested after they're completed, and they need to then demonstrate that they're good at predicting events that occur well after their completion. Until they do that, it's very difficult to eliminate design and implementation bias in any results produced while it was being developed, so those results must be considered biased and therefore, are not a reliable indicator of it's ability to predict the future events from current events.
"Science" at its worst (Score:2)
The research about predicting revolutions is awful. I don't understand how some people in social sciences still get to publish these results without even remotely trying to avoid confirmation bias.
If you read the research [uic.edu] linked from the BBC story, you can see that they do indeed have some impressive-looking graphics that show how the media reporting changed prior to some revolutions. That's interesting, but it's completely and utterly useless without also taking random samples from other places and times and checking if the same changes don't happen when there's no revolution. If they do, the whole "finding" is almost useless: it's only slightly better than always predicting revolutions whenever you want to make a prediction.
Re:"Science" at its worst (Score:2)
it's only slightly better than always predicting revolutions whenever you want to make a prediction.
By this time tomorrow we will have a revolution. Another one shortly after that. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the world will undergo 7 revolutions this week alone.
Re:"Science" at its worst (Score:0)
Well, that's the idea. If people only check your predictions when there was actually a revolution, you'll be right every time :)
Standing on Zanzibar (Score:2)
Not as good as "The sheep look up," but apropos.
Poor man's soma (Score:0)
See, the internet is a poor man's schwag. Better keep the youth on it, or they might get interested about their communities and how they are run. That can only end in bloodshed.
With no internet you got a lot more free time (Score:1)
Gonna laugh one shot one day (Score:0)