Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Say Goodbye To the Information Age: It's All About Reputation Now (aeon.co)

Posted by msmash on from the how-about-that dept.

An anonymous reader shares an essay on Aeon magazine by Gloria Origgi, an Italian philosopher and a tenured senior researcher at CNRS : We are experiencing a fundamental paradigm shift in our relationship to knowledge. From the 'information age', we are moving towards the 'reputation age', in which information will have value only if it is already filtered, evaluated and commented upon by others. Seen in this light, reputation has become a central pillar of collective intelligence today. It is the gatekeeper to knowledge, and the keys to the gate are held by others. The way in which the authority of knowledge is now constructed makes us reliant on what are the inevitably biased judgments of other people, most of whom we do not know.

[...] The paradigm shift from the age of information to the age of reputation must be taken into account when we try to defend ourselves from 'fake news' and other misinformation and disinformation techniques that are proliferating through contemporary societies. What a mature citizen of the digital age should be competent at is not spotting and confirming the veracity of the news. Rather, she should be competent at reconstructing the reputational path of the piece of information in question, evaluating the intentions of those who circulated it, and figuring out the agendas of those authorities that leant it credibility.

12 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. Trumpian Algebra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    "reconstructing the reputational path of the piece of information in question, evaluating the intentions of those who circulated it, and figuring out the agendas of those authorities that leant it credibility."

    In other words, if it came out of Trump's mouth, it's a lie.

    1. Re:Trumpian Algebra by pots · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know, lumping all politicians together like this really isn't any better than any other form of bigotry. It comes from the same place, and causes all the same problems. It's particularly harmful here, of course, because while racial or ethnic bigotry undermines our ability to live together in the same country, this undermines our ability to have a country at all. Even monarchies have politicians.

      The keystone principle of representative government is that politicians are not all the same and that citizens can maintain their government by carefully choosing between those politicians. You may argue that this principle has proven to be unreliable, and I'd agree with you there with the present case in point, but that's a far cry from claiming that it's a total failure.

  2. Malicious crock of shit by ohnonononono · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Technology provides us with the possibility of OBJECTIVE insight and provides framework for OBJECTIVE verification (with mathematics).
    This is simply arguing for dystopia and forsaking a new Enlightenment, a new Renaissance, because "eh, it's too hard to care."
    Reputation is emotional and therefore non-objective. Animals can construct hierarchies based on reputation. We are human beings with all the tools to shape our reality. Why should we forsake our intellect for an animalistic way of life? Because it allows us to be controlled by whoever is at the top of the hierarchy dispensing reputation? This article, this idea, is poison.

    mature citizen

    she

    Yep, this is a propaganda stunt.

    The message here is "blindly trust your favorite source, here's a falsely sophisticated argument for why it's okay for YOU, the smart he/she/xe/.... that you are, to do so". If listened to it could have terrible effect on society, especially if its effective on the "tech sector", the people who have pretty much the only jobs that matter in the "second industrial revolution", the people who have the power to contest the will of their employers and prevent dystopia.
    If the horrors that mass surveillance + AI + automation offer us are to be averted, it is YOU that are going to have to stand up, and in order to do so, you will need a philosophical grounding in order to coordinate your efforts with your peers.

    This trash article is an attempt to subvert that grounding.

    1. Re:Malicious crock of shit by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Insightful
      User ID > 5 million.

      Achievements = 2

      I guess you don't have enough reputation to be trusted.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    2. Re:Malicious crock of shit by alvinrod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's true, but technology's efficiencies are potentially (I would say "especially") capable of making mass control more efficient.

      You can probably argue that incrementally back all the way to the first cave paintings as well though. There's always going to be some new danger on the horizon, but I don't think this presents a long term concern. If something is detrimental towards human survival, those traits which enable it or succumb to it will be selected against in the long run. That may seem painful right now, but it's no less so than the mound of corpses it took to develop an immune response to all of our past threats.

      It's always in someone's best interest to let the next genie out of the bottle and even though it will leave another mound of corpses on the landscapes of history, it will move the species as a whole forward. I suppose modern society has afforded people the freedom and ability to go live off in the woods and away from it all, but I think that's just burying one's head in the sand.

    3. Re:Malicious crock of shit by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If something is detrimental towards human survival, those traits which enable it or succumb to it will be selected against in the long run.

      It is estimated that 150-200 species become extinct every day. Natural selection didn't save them, and there's no reason to believe natural selection will save us.

      Plus, the ability (some might say, "propensity") of humans to do harm to each other (and themselves) develops much more rapidly than the mechanisms of natural selection.

      You can probably argue that incrementally back all the way to the first cave paintings as well though.

      No, you probably can't.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Malicious crock of shit by tbannist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But technology has given us a lot of mostly objective information in the form of photos, videos, logs and other electronic records, you don't need to rely on trust and reputation if you have a surveillance camera record who steals cookies.

      Unfortunately, that's not really true. Photos can be doctored, videos can be generated, logs and electronic records can be altered or falsified. You still need to rely on trust and reputation to tell you that the objective information that you have been provided is both truthful and representative. And always remember that in addition to faking the evidence you are given, someone can also hide the information that they don't want you to see.

      The crazy conspiracy people have lots and lots of "evidence" that they will show you that "proves" their conspiracy is true. Moon landing hoaxers will show you video of the flag on the moon "waving in the wind" to prove it was filmed on earth, however, they won't show you other video where it's not moving or tell you that the video was taken immediately after the flag was planted (and thus a more plausible explanation is that the flag is still vibrating from the pole being stuck in the ground).

      The problem is not just evidence, which can be manufactured, but also framing which can be used to persuade people to overlook inconvenient truths.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  3. That assumes... by toejam13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This article takes the noble assumption that people actually want the truth instead of the warm, comforting embrace of the self-reaffirming echo chamber. I know more than a few people who turn to questionable news because they don't want their view of the world challenged. As long as these people exist, there will be a market for this sort of information.

  4. A lot of words for a simple concept by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Back in my age we called it "argument from authority". And even then we knew that it's bullshit.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Knowledge was always reputation based by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The issue isn't that we rely on reputation to decide if something is truth. The issue is it is easier for charlatans to build reputation now a days.

  6. Re:Slashdot's political agenda by Betty+Crocker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ad verecundiam

    http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/

  7. Stop making sense and appeal to authority... by neurosine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good critical thinking should never be abandoned because we defer to the source of the arguments put forth. From many religions to Hitler this has proven over and over again to be a bad road to go down. Completely untrustworthy people can be right sometimes. The most rigid researcher can make a mistake. I agree that truth and validity are becoming more important. The way to recognize them, and to distinguish sound arguments from unsound arguments is to apply good critical thinking skills. Unfortunately Logic is a university level course. It really should be taught in Jr. High, and touched upon in Elementary. This would certainly boost the IQ of the general populace...which is maybe why it isn't taught. Politicians and governments get away with too many things because the people they rule don't seem to have very good bullshit detectors.