[ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
Locked
12
12
[ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
 
|
That scratch in my surface jumps me back, yet again, to the postmodern point: Beware of the online war of propaganda http://news.usc.edu/82853/beware-of-the-war-of-propaganda-taking-place-online/ > “People normally trust online content,” said Farshad Kooti, one of the Ph.D. candidates at USC Viterbi who worked with Galstyan. “Unfortunately, this introduces an opportunity to spread misinformation by using automated bots that are very hard to detect.” Misinformation and disinformation are NOT the threat. Trust is the threat. -- glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
|
|
Are there not more and less risky sources? If you have source that provides you with high-quality, predictive information, over and over and they are right, should not that individual be allowed less scrutiny than a person that has no track record, or a bad track record? Given finite attention, doesn't a person have to decide what to scrutinize, and what to let slide?
-----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 5:28 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat? That scratch in my surface jumps me back, yet again, to the postmodern point: Beware of the online war of propaganda http://news.usc.edu/82853/beware-of-the-war-of-propaganda-taking-place-online/ > “People normally trust online content,” said Farshad Kooti, one of the Ph.D. candidates at USC Viterbi who worked with Galstyan. “Unfortunately, this introduces an opportunity to spread misinformation by using automated bots that are very hard to detect.” Misinformation and disinformation are NOT the threat. Trust is the threat. -- glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Maybe a restatement of Glen's point would be:
Misinformation and disinformation are a given: How we manage our trust is the challenge. I was introduced to Dempster-Shafer theory on a project a number of years ago... and was impressed by some of its' utility as a formalism on the problem we were working (actually extensions to D-S theory)... On the original topic, however, I feel like my world has been, for a very long time, invaded by the forces of propaganda, misinformation and disinformation. One of the more interesting books I received when my grandfather died was entitled "Straight and Crooked Thinking" written near the turn of the 20th century... and of course we have the Greeks coining concepts such as "rhetoric" and "sophistry" millennia ago. - Steve > Are there not more and less risky sources? If you have source that provides you with high-quality, predictive information, over and over and they are right, should not that individual be allowed less scrutiny than a person that has no track record, or a bad track record? Given finite attention, doesn't a person have to decide what to scrutinize, and what to let slide? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella > Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 5:28 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat? > > > That scratch in my surface jumps me back, yet again, to the postmodern point: > > Beware of the online war of propaganda > http://news.usc.edu/82853/beware-of-the-war-of-propaganda-taking-place-online/ > >> “People normally trust online content,” said Farshad Kooti, one of the Ph.D. candidates at USC Viterbi who worked with Galstyan. “Unfortunately, this introduces an opportunity to spread misinformation by using automated bots that are very hard to detect.” > Misinformation and disinformation are NOT the threat. Trust is the threat. > > -- > glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847 > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
``That person also could have said something like "People have diverse methods for deciding what online content to trust", which would also been more useful. It would imply that some of us are gullible and some of us are skeptical. But I think what they really meant was "People are not very diverse in deciding what online content to trust. They simply believe what they see without any scrutiny." And, worse, the article's and project's very existence is implying that it's OK to be gullible, we'll just clamp down on these evil sources of [dm]isinformation for you. You just go on believing whatever you see without any scrutiny.''
Are the trustworthy sources playing a long game? The defection will come, it is just a matter of how many people are sucked-in before it does.. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
|
|
On 06/26/2015 03:21 PM, Steve Smith wrote:> Maybe a restatement of Glen's point would be:
> Misinformation and disinformation are a given: > How we manage our trust is the challenge. Well, not quite. I would have said that trust is an unreachable limit. (And distrust should also be an unreachable limit -- there is information to be gained even from the most random looking sources -- eg the cosmic background.) On 06/26/2015 03:34 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Are the trustworthy sources playing a long game? The defection will come, it is just a matter of how many people are sucked-in before it does.. Yeah but that process will tend toward the least common denominator. It's why we end up with silly infotainment news programs that emphasize the weather forecast and cute pictures of kids on their birthday. To say anything useful literally _means_ to say something that is more likely to cause someone to defect ... even if the defection is because the audience doesn't have the attention span required. -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
|
|
"Yeah but that process will tend toward the least common denominator. It's why we end up with silly infotainment news programs that emphasize the weather forecast and cute pictures of kids on their birthday."
CBS or Comcast cover that, but also the evening news. In various situations such conglomerates may find it in their interest to present information in ways that benefit their bottom line, even to audiences that are above the least common denominator. Even if their news programs are credible and honest most of the time, it's exceptional times where their reputation can be monetized. These situations could plausibly impact people as much as propaganda. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ep ropella
Glen, Don't the bulk of non-zero sum gains arise from trust? Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- That scratch in my surface jumps me back, yet again, to the postmodern point: Beware of the online war of propaganda http://news.usc.edu/82853/beware-of-the-war-of-propaganda-taking-place-online/ > “People normally trust online content,” said Farshad Kooti, one of the Ph.D. candidates at USC Viterbi who worked with Galstyan. “Unfortunately, this introduces an opportunity to spread misinformation by using automated bots that are very hard to detect.” Misinformation and disinformation are NOT the threat. Trust is the threat. -- glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
On 06/26/2015 04:36 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> CBS or Comcast cover that, but also the evening news. In various situations such conglomerates may find it in their interest to present information in ways that benefit their bottom line, even to audiences that are above the least common denominator. Even if their news programs are credible and honest most of the time, it's exceptional times where their reputation can be monetized. These situations could plausibly impact people as much as propaganda. Another good point that argues to the same conclusion, because anyone who succumbs to flipping the trust bit opens themselves up to that sort of creeping exploitation. That slow, imperceptible programming probably has _way_ more impact than the relatively episodic nature of propaganda. On 06/27/2015 06:50 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:> Glen, > Don't the bulk of non-zero sum gains arise from trust? > see MOTH, for instance. No. I think the bulk of non-zero sum gains are a result of co-evolution of competing scrutiny, the exploitation of niches the players stumbled upon together. I.e. they're really zero-sum games where the externalities aren't recognized by the players. And in that sense, if it is trust that prevents them from recognizing the externalities, then trust is tantamount to ignorance. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
|
|
Glen wrote
No. I think the bulk of non-zero sum gains are a result of co-evolution of competing scrutiny, the exploitation of niches the players stumbled upon together. I.e. they're really zero-sum games where the externalities aren't recognized by the players. And in that sense, if it is trust that prevents them from recognizing the externalities, then trust is tantamount to ignorance. Nick responds: WOW! DARK! Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen ep ropella Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 12:12 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat? On 06/26/2015 04:36 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > CBS or Comcast cover that, but also the evening news. In various situations such conglomerates may find it in their interest to present information in ways that benefit their bottom line, even to audiences that are above the least common denominator. Even if their news programs are credible and honest most of the time, it's exceptional times where their reputation can be monetized. These situations could plausibly impact people as much as propaganda. Another good point that argues to the same conclusion, because anyone who succumbs to flipping the trust bit opens themselves up to that sort of creeping exploitation. That slow, imperceptible programming probably has _way_ more impact than the relatively episodic nature of propaganda. On 06/27/2015 06:50 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:> Glen, > Don't the bulk of non-zero sum gains arise from trust? > see MOTH, for instance. No. I think the bulk of non-zero sum gains are a result of co-evolution of competing scrutiny, the exploitation of niches the players stumbled upon together. I.e. they're really zero-sum games where the externalities aren't recognized by the players. And in that sense, if it is trust that prevents them from recognizing the externalities, then trust is tantamount to ignorance. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ep ropella
glen ep ropella wrote:
> On 06/26/2015 04:36 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> CBS or Comcast cover that, but also the evening news. In various situations such conglomerates may find it in their interest to present information in ways that benefit their bottom line, even to audiences that are above the least common denominator. Even if their news programs are credible and honest most of the time, it's exceptional times where their reputation can be monetized. These situations could plausibly impact people as much as propaganda. > Another good point that argues to the same conclusion, because anyone who succumbs to flipping the trust bit opens themselves up to that sort of creeping exploitation. That slow, imperceptible programming probably has _way_ more impact than the relatively episodic nature of propaganda. My brother-in-law moved from Socialist Spain in the late 80s where the media was strictly state-controlled to Chile where they were able to get, among other things, CNN. He thought he was in fat-city and watched CNN religiously for world news, feeling like it was a drink of cool clear pure spring-water. Then one day they were showing "riots" at the capitol in Santiago which I drove past every morning and every evening and in fact there were no riots... there were a few relatively sedate collections of people with signs protesting, but the footage he saw on CNN was patently a violent clash of protesters and police. Not only did he drive past it every day but his co-workers were all Chilean and would have known if there were violent clashes... they all laughed at him when he said "but I SAW it on CNN!"... he never was able to suss out exactly what the footage they showed was from, though there *had* been violent protests at the capital over the last few years, it must have been archival, and perhaps was presented as such (though he insists it wasn't) but the net effect was to "flip his trust bit" abruptly and irrevocably. > On 06/27/2015 06:50 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:> Glen, >> Don't the bulk of non-zero sum gains arise from trust? >> see MOTH, for instance. > No. I think the bulk of non-zero sum gains are a result of co-evolution of competing scrutiny, the exploitation of niches the players stumbled upon together. I.e. they're really zero-sum games where the externalities aren't recognized by the players. And in that sense, if it is trust that prevents them from recognizing the externalities, then trust is tantamount to ignorance. I think this is a very interesting and profound point you two are teasing out here. I have always wondered about the rhetoric of zero-sum games... I have always suspected, as Glen suggests here that the measure, the "sum" in question is very relative and contextual and as stated here, is based on "ignoring externalities". It would seem in the rhetoric of thermodynamics and the second-law and whatall that all games are "negative sum"... that *any* turn of *any* crank is just futile if you are seeking a positive sum from it. Neitczhe must have loved it! On the other hand, human "games" do not trade in conserved quantities and concepts such as "love" may very well be the stuff of "positive sums"... even if loyalty and nationalism might not be? Seems like the kinds of things an evolutionary psychologist would know about? - Steve > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Nick wrote:
> Glen wrote > > No. I think the bulk of non-zero sum gains are a result of co-evolution of > competing scrutiny, the exploitation of niches the players stumbled upon > together. I.e. they're really zero-sum games where the externalities aren't > recognized by the players. And in that sense, if it is trust that prevents > them from recognizing the externalities, then trust is tantamount to > ignorance. > > Nick responds: WOW! DARK! "darkness" on such matters often serves to increase contrast IMO. I'm left wondering if said darkness is a zero=sum and what the externalities of such maunderings are? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
|
|
On 06/27/2015 01:11 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> I'm left wondering if said darkness is a zero=sum and what the externalities of such maunderings are? I admit there is a sense that sentiment is zero-sum, the intuitive sense that if you have a really positive response to some stimulus, then you can't also have a very negative response to that same stimulus ... at least not at the exact same instant. Things like the necker cube or the rubin vase help demonstrate that the two positions (negative and positive) might well be very close together in the same higher dimensional space. Or, in other words, what looks like non-zero-sum in low dimensions can easily be zero-sum in higher dimensions. The same applies to overcoming logical paradox, untying knots, etc. How anyone could possible consider these things "dark" is beyond me. Maybe, Nick, what you mean to say is that logicians, mathematicians, programmers, big data researchers, etc. are masters of the Dark Arts? If that's what you mean, then, yeah, OK. However, I prefer to call it Chaos Magick or the Left-Hand Path. It's not dark ... just creepy. 8^) -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
|
|
"If that's what you mean, then, yeah, OK. However, I prefer to call it Chaos Magick or the Left-Hand Path. It's not dark ... just creepy. "
Discovery of better models can invalidate consensus and orthodoxy. This leads to vested interests being threatened and disruption. A typical response to this is to isolate the disrupter. Tying them to stake and burning them is one way. Another way is to buy up all of the intellectual property in the vicinity and get lawyers busy. It's kind of all the same thing. The tactics change depending on social constraints, the relative size of the minority to majority, and governance systems already in place. "Dark" is what the majority calls the minority. It serves their purposes. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
|
|
Glen writes,
"Anyway, my point is basically that even the majority-vs-minority conception is in the domain of Light. To be Dark means appreciating the entire (occult) mechanism, but especially focusing on the rarely used pathways." I'll distinguish between popular and powerful pathways. A reason the powers-that-be circle the wagons on things like renewable energy is because they had/have enough instinctive fear to imagine it could well succeed; so, in the medium term, obstacles must be created to slow it. (Until they can hire people with interest of this occult mechanism to sort it out for them.) Being an early bitcoin miner was pretty much a requirement for being a bitcoin millionaire (at least with the means later to make large capital investments). Even in the mainstream trading systems, the exploitable inefficiencies are transitory, and knowledge of them is held closely by the people that model those systems. Again, rarely used pathways lead to profit. Imagination and the occult go together. Rapid growth and the occult go together. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
[ SPAM ] Re: [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
|
|
Well riposted Marcus...
It has been a while since the playing field has been a simple one-dimensional good/evil, light/dark, black/white.... I don't have a good formulation of this parsimony principle, but systems do seem to be as low dimensional as possible, but no lower... in the spirit of Willem of Occam or Einstein's (as simple as possible but no simpler). I would say that rapid motion (growth/change, etc) offers more exploitable territory in the same landscape... when that landscape is flooded, then we have new dimensions emerge (fish begin to fly, salamanders gills begin to function in (humid) air, lillypads reach up out of the swamp, etc.). In this use of the term occult, I suppose we are meaning both operating in (otherwise) uncharted territories as well as discovering new dimensional/modalities. - Steve > Glen writes, > > "Anyway, my point is basically that even the majority-vs-minority conception is in the domain of Light. To be Dark means appreciating the entire (occult) mechanism, but especially focusing on the rarely used pathways." > > I'll distinguish between popular and powerful pathways. A reason the powers-that-be circle the wagons on things like renewable energy is because they had/have enough instinctive fear to imagine it could well succeed; so, in the medium term, obstacles must be created to slow it. (Until they can hire people with interest of this occult mechanism to sort it out for them.) Being an early bitcoin miner was pretty much a requirement for being a bitcoin millionaire (at least with the means later to make large capital investments). Even in the mainstream trading systems, the exploitable inefficiencies are transitory, and knowledge of them is held closely by the people that model those systems. Again, rarely used pathways lead to profit. Imagination and the occult go together. Rapid growth and the occult go together. > > Marcus > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [ SPAM ] Re: [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
|
|
"In this use of the term occult, I suppose we are meaning both operating in (otherwise) uncharted territories as well as discovering new dimensional/modalities."
Dynamically binding this word Glen likes to the probable/apparent meaning. There's no point in fighting it. :-) Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [ SPAM ] Re: [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
|
|
On 06/29/2015 02:40 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Dynamically binding this word Glen likes to the probable/apparent meaning. There's no point in fighting it. :-) Say the word and you'll be free[*] Say the word and be like me In the beginning I misunderstood But now I've got it, the word is good Spread the word and you'll be free Spread the word and be like me [*] within a composition of your schema anyway. -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [ SPAM ] Re: [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Marcus -
I'm a fan of dynamic binding, even/especially of natural language... I recently met/visited Glen en-vivo and can report that there were no pentacles or other obviously occult gear (or tattoos) evident. We enjoyed some good beer and conversation... equally entertaining to our online banter, but smoother with frosty beverages in-hand! With Doug it requires a few slugs of Scotch... - Steve > "In this use of the term occult, I suppose we are meaning both operating in (otherwise) uncharted territories as well as discovering new dimensional/modalities." > > Dynamically binding this word Glen likes to the probable/apparent meaning. There's no point in fighting it. :-) > > Marcus > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |