The Age of Distributed Truth (eugenewei.com) 89
Eugene Wei, head of video at Oculus (Formerly with Flipboard, Hulu, and Amazon) writes about how information gets distributed now, and things that were commonly known in specific circles are becoming more widely known. From his article: The internet gave everyone a megaphone, and these days that can feel like that Chinese proverb, you know the one. Perhaps the truth was better kept in the hands of a limited set of responsible stewards, but that age of the expert has passed, and that system had its own issues. As every Death Star reminds us each time they're blown up, concentrating power in a small area has its own unique vulnerability. We live in the age of distributed truth, and it's an environment in which fake news can spread like mold when in viral form. But the same applies to the truth, and if there's one lesson on how to do your part in an age of distributed truth, it's to speak the truth and to support those who do. It may be exhausting work -- is it really necessary to point out the emperor is buck naked? -- but it's the best we can do for now. In this age, the silent majority is no majority at all.
Re:"Responsible Stewards" (Score:5, Insightful)
There's your problem. You're looking for perfect unblemished snowflakes (which don't exist) instead of doing the boring, mundane work of verification and cross checking of the facts at hand. No wonder you're paranoid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And the others are "Stay Alert" and "Keep Your Laser Handy."
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget your towel
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a 1 D 10 T statement if there ever was one.
It is all in how you tell it (Score:2)
Apparently lots of people knew about the toxic environment at Uber. Why, then, did Susan Fowler's blog post [susanjfowler.com] end up being the one that set off the dynamite?
"It almost sounds naive, but it's clear she knows what's happening, and how in this high stakes game of poker, she has to be the
Truth is not what you think it is (Score:3, Informative)
For example, some of you incorrectly think Russia hacking the US election is "fake news". This is incorrect.
Some of you think Russia interfered on social media in the US election. This is true, but it is not true, in that it was far worse than that, and at a scale you would find difficult to believe.
Some of you think Russia may have hacked 15 states and only looked at data in a few counties in those states. This is not true, as it is far far worse.
Some of you think Russia hacked 39 states and only looked at data and gave it to certain individuals they controlled. This is not true, as it is far worse.
A very very few of you know that Russia attempted to hack every state, managed to disable specific precincts voting machines, created large scale disruption, and altered reporting systems for electronic-only non-paper-trail counts, and also maintained large scale social media attacks. This is very true, but most people, sadly, think it's false.
Do you really want to know how deep the rabbit hole goes?
Re:Truth is not what you think it is (Score:4, Interesting)
Some of us think that Russia engaged in low level phishing attempts against everything during the election, just as they do for every election everywhere, and just about any internet facing server.
Some of us think that the US also does pretty much the same thing, with the same level of power.
Some of us knew both of those things because we've read enough posts on slashdot to have sysadmins repeat this fact at least a hundred times.
The reality is far worse than the fake news of the Russia story. The people undermining our elections are not far away oligarchs. They are domestic oligarchs, which have far more conflicts of interest.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really want to know how deep the rabbit hole goes?
Yes, in fact I do.
I don't want claims and allegations. I want verifiable facts and details.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you really want to know how deep the rabbit hole goes?
Yes, in fact I do.
I don't want claims and allegations. I want verifiable facts and details.
You're not cleared for that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
the SELECTION in violation of the 14th Amendment guarantee of EQUAL rights however....but the ELECTION went to Hillary by 2.86 million MORE votes.
Re: (Score:2)
A very very few of you know that Russia attempted to hack every state, managed to disable specific precincts voting machines, created large scale disruption, and altered reporting systems for electronic-only non-paper-trail counts, and also maintained large scale social media attacks. This is very true, but most people, sadly, think it's false.
Do you have sources/citations for this?
Re: (Score:2)
Just look at it.. its talking about fake news... but isnt talking about fox/msnbc/cnn/etc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really want to know how deep the rabbit hole goes?
Yes.
Does The Lord of the Rings trilogy end when Gandalf falls to his doom while fighting the demon? Wtf bro.
Re: Truth is not what you think it is (Score:2)
It does not matter what we want. The problem with conspiracy is practical unverifiability.
Step 1 to sticking up for the truth: (Score:1)
Stop silencing it. Stop labeling opinions that seem "mean" or "spiteful" as hate speech. Free speech is essential to unmasking the truth. Problem these days is this country is just one big dramatization of "a few good men".
Stewards, eh? (Score:3)
We have absolutely no grasp of how much better our lives are now, and how much better they're going to be in the future, due to advancements in communication technology.
Take the healthcare industry. The joke is, of course, that doctors hate it when their patients internet-diagnose themselves, but the truth of the matter is that the internet enables patients to have a much greater degree of participation in their own health. This is amazing. Doctors are, generally speaking, pretty smart people, but they are also very busy. Having a patient who takes an active role in their health make visits far more efficient and effective. That's just one industry, and we haven't really progressed far with AI yet. Imagine what's coming: a doctor that lives in your browser that can make recommendations based on data from your telemetry band. Preemptive heart treatment. Prescriptions auto modified based on your reactions to them.
Some may lament days gone by of the "Experts", but they can have it. I'm looking forward to the future.
Re:Stewards, eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
One thing that "experts" like doctors and lawyers hate about the age of "free" information is that the common rabble now knows stuff, actual stuff. In the old days you asked a doctor to treat a condition, he tried the best he could and you had to be content with that. When I had a procedure done in 2012 and I wasn't happy with the outcome, I was able to look it up online, find relative success rates and recovery times and find out that: yes, I should have expected nearly full recovery in 2 weeks instead of 3+ months, no, I should not have expected the joint locking and other side effects I suffered due to the long recovery, and, in point of fact, my outcome was worse than more than 99% of patients who had similar procedures done in the last 30 years. A litigious person can then take that data to court and seek damages, but I would consider the lost time and effort of such an endeavor to be "more damaging" to my life than this particular outcome, so I let it go.
Similarly, I went to a lawyer to ask about certain civil rights issues and he more or less blew smoke up any available orifice with stories about how there aren't any lawyers within 200 miles who would even begin to touch a case like that, you have no grounds, etc. etc. essentially, he was representing "the other side" even though I had paid him a consultation fee. I already knew he was full of BS from previous internet research, and within 4 hours I had found a different lawyer, halfway between this clown's office and my home, who did represent us gratis and got the result we were looking for from the school board within a matter of days. In the old days, you would be forced to take the local representatives word for things, or travel great distances to do extensive research and consulting.
Re: (Score:2)
A litigious person can then take that data to court and seek damages, but I would consider the lost time and effort of such an endeavor to be "more damaging" to my life than this particular outcome, so I let it go.
Translation: You don't care about the next guy that doctor fucks up. Its all about your time and effort and how that might benefit you.
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: I've got better ways to improve society than launching litigation against a doctor whose removal from practice might, or might not improve the overall state of healthcare.
Re: (Score:2)
One thing that "experts" like doctors and lawyers hate about the age of "free" information is that the common rabble now knows stuff, actual stuff. In the old days you asked a doctor to treat a condition, he tried the best he could and you had to be content with that.
It was hardly that uncommon to get a second opinion in serious matters. And though it might chafe them a bit to realize the patient knows more about their particular condition than they do, I think most recognize the genuine self-interest people have in their own health and if smart patients effectively do a micro-study of medicine to understand it better they're cool with that. At least the doctors I've talked too haven't been hostile or defensive, then again I've inquired about treatment options not gathe
Re: (Score:2)
One thing that "experts" like doctors and lawyers hate about the age of "free" information is that the common rabble now knows stuff, actual stuff.
Some, sure. You'll have low energy assholes in every field who just want to coast, and having an educated client upsets that balance.
Fuck them.
The ones who will thrive are my kind of people; those that are constantly improving, looking for new and innovative ways to solve old problems and more efficiently use their time. Won't be hard to tell the difference bet
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine what's coming: a doctor that lives in your browser that can make recommendations based on data from your telemetry band. Preemptive heart treatment. Prescriptions auto modified based on your reactions to them.
Ho Ho Ho!
And your insurance company knowing every little detail about your health :) Can't wait for that day!
Re: (Score:2)
Are you an expert in something? Do you find people coming to you about $whateverThatIs with their heads full of nonsense that they don't have the breadth and background knowledge to understand, and which they got second hand from someone who knows even less and/or has some agenda to push?
Great, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say it was going to be all sunshine and roses. There are definitely downsides, but what you mentioned barely rates as an annoyance. Those same people who think they know what they're talking about because they read an article online ALSO sometimes have some pretty good ideas. More, their good ideas are informed by the knowledge they gained online. They may not be able to execute the idea, but that's where I come in.
Knowledge workers aren't going away as a result of the internet, but rather thei
What Chinese proverb? (Score:5, Insightful)
The internet gave everyone a megaphone, and these days that can feel like that Chinese proverb, you know the one.
No. I don't know the one. After googling I still don't know it. Has anyone figured it out?
Re:What Chinese proverb? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If he's angling for what I think he's angling for, ancient Chinese curse would've been the right description: "May you live in interesting times."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was my first thought, but it's not really relevant to the context.
How about "Don't trust a barber who says you need a haircut"?
Re: (Score:3)
"It is only when a mosquito lands on one's testicle that one realizes all problems can be solved without violence."
Re: (Score:1)
Give a man a megaphone, and he can yell for a day. Teach him how to make megaphones, and he can yell for a lifetime.
Or something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
No. I don't know the one. After googling I still don't know. Has anyone figured it out?
I lived in China for several years, speak Mandarin, know several hundred chengyu [wikipedia.org], and I have no idea what TFS is referring to.
My wife is Chinese, and I just asked her if she is aware of any ancient Chinese proverbs that refer to megaphones, and she said no.
I thought this article was going to be interesting (Score:1)
...until it mentioned fake news.
I'm so tired of the "fake news" about "fake news" FFS
Experts aren't simply truth receptacles (Score:5, Insightful)
Experts are people who take truth/knowledge and process it. They apply what is applicable, creatively and pragmatically.
This nonsense about the death of the expert is, itself, an untruth.
Re: Experts aren't simply truth receptacles (Score:2)
Death means nobody few hear it behind the white noise of megaphones.
Quotable quote (Score:5, Interesting)
That goes in my quotable quotes file:
" if there's one lesson on how to do your part in an age of distributed truth, it's to speak the truth and to support those who do. It may be exhausting work but it's the best we can do for now."
Truth to power = "you are Russian hackers" (Score:1)
Oddly enough, those who last spoke the truth (i.e., John Podesta and the DNC did some unsavory things to keep Sanders out of contention) and noted that (Hillary) the emperor (to be) was buck naked (i.e., a corrupt and uninspiring candidate) are among the LEAST supported here in the USA. In fact, speaking the truth to power here could get you accused of "h
Truth Gatekeepers (Score:3)
One problem I've found is that scientific research is mostly behind paywalls of some sort. Either you read an article where the company has access to the site and you get an interpretation or you pay the $10 or $100 or $1000 for access to the raw data and report.
But any nut job can set up a website and as long as it sounds believable (for small values of belief), he or she will have a following of similar nut jobs.
[John]
So truth is just a jumble of words? (Score:3)
From his article:
Was this meandering collection of platitudes, non-sequiturs and aphorisms supposed to contain some great insight?
I read this somewhere once (Score:1)
For men shall be... Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
The Clintons are a perfect example (Score:3)
http://www.breitbart.com/big-j... [breitbart.com]
> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news would be consumed,
> President Bill Clinton's White House feared that the Internet was allowing average
> citizens, especially conservatives, to bypass legacy gatekeepers and access
> information that had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.
>
> The infamous 1995 "conspiracy commerce memo" tried to demonize and discredit alternative
> media outlets on the right to mainstream media organizations and D.C. establishment figures.
President Kennedy made Bill Clinton look like a saint. He was fucking women all over the place, e.g. Marilyn Monroe. But there was no internet back in the early 1960's, and the MSM lapdogs were all protective of a Democrat president. Compare that with Bill Clinton in 1998. The MSM were still protecting their Democrat president. But there was now a thing called "the internet" or "the web". Along came a lowly store clerk (Matt Drudge) with a modem
http://australianpolitics.com/... [australianpolitics.com]
> Web Posted: 01/17/98 23:32:47 PST -- NEWSWEEK KILLS STORY ON WHITE HOUSE INTERN
>
> BLOCKBUSTER REPORT: 23-YEAR OLD, FORMER WHITE HOUSE INTERN, SEX RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT
>
> **World Exclusive**
> **Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**
>
> At the last minute, at 6 p.m. on Saturday evening, NEWSWEEK magazine
> killed a story that was destined to shake official Washington to its foundation: A White House
> intern carried on a sexual affair with the President of the United States!
Hillary Clinton's response was to lament the lack of "internet gatekeepers". http://www.freerepublic.com/fo... [freerepublic.com]
You simply have to realize the truth... (Score:2)
There is no truth.
... that Chinese proverb, you know the one ... (Score:2)
I do not know "that Chinese proverb". Anyone here knows-it ?
Re: (Score:2)
"People will believe anything if you attribute it to Mark Twain".
Author is mistaken as it's not actually Chinese. It was by Benjamin Franklin.
You can't handle the truth (Score:2)
That is why you down mod.
Jedi Master Elmer Fudd (Score:2)
A million college professors cried out in anguish and were left gnawing the knuckle of their remaining hand.
Support those who speak the truth (Score:1)
if there's one lesson on how to do your part in an age of distributed truth, it's to speak the truth and to support those who do.
Xz format inadequate for long-term archiving [nongnu.org]