The Age of Distributed Truth (eugenewei.com)

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.

Comments

Re:"Responsible Stewards"

[Captain Splendid]

Show me an inviolate person

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.

Truth is not what you think it is

[WillAffleckUW]

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

[king neckbeard]

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:Truth is not what you think it is

[XXongo]

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:Truth is not what you think it is

[king neckbeard]

Ah yes, security clearance. The age-old refuge of making extraordinary claims without that pesky need to provide extraordinary evidence.

Stewards, eh?

[grasshoppa]

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?

[MangoCats]

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.

What Chinese proverb?

[fiannaFailMan]

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?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

It's by Confucius. It starts with "Man who goes to bed with itchy bottom..."

Re:What Chinese proverb?

[SCVonSteroids]

"It is only when a mosquito lands on one's testicle that one realizes all problems can be solved without violence."

Experts aren't simply truth receptacles

[Dripdry]

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.

Quotable quote

[Geoffrey.landis]

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 Gatekeepers

[Bigbutt]

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?

[petes_PoV]

From his article:

Was this meandering collection of platitudes, non-sequiturs and aphorisms supposed to contain some great insight?

The Clintons are a perfect example

[knorthern knight]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

> 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/...

> 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...