ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

The horror scenario

It's interesting to see that the core concept of Infogalactic is Sir Tim Berners-Lee's horror scenario:
I talk about the horror scenario of going to a candidate's webpage and depending on who you were you get a different message and that is just marketing 101 for the political websites out there. So we need to rethink the way we have built society on top of the web.
But why shouldn't people see what they prefer to see? Why should they be forced to see what Sir Tim, or the 512 Wikipedia admins want them to see?

Labels:

64 Comments:

Blogger JP April 12, 2017 11:02 AM  

IF ONLY WE COULD KILL ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE WE WOULD FINALLY BE RID OF ALL THE MURDEROUS FASCISTS

Anonymous Faceless April 12, 2017 11:03 AM  

The more I hear him talk, the more I conclude that his goal was to create a new set of gatekeepers as authorities in websites to rise above the pre-web Internet culture of absolute free speech and "no girls on the Internet".

Anonymous fop April 12, 2017 11:05 AM  

But why shouldn't people see what they prefer to see?

This already happens in our minds. Infogalactic just does it in the 2D world.

Blogger Old Ez April 12, 2017 11:07 AM  

I fear that the tendency here is to go off the rails of post-modernism. It's fine to say, "everything is narrative". But at some point you've got to knuckle under and admit that that, too, is just a narrative. If we can't all agree that "The cat, Sam, is on the brown mat next to the green door at 515 Main St." then we might as well commence the literal flinging of poo at each other.

Blogger VFM #4388 April 12, 2017 11:15 AM  

@4
The Infogalactic setup will not just have an ideological slider, but an objectivity slider, so you can adjust the mix of facts, which should be about the same from side to side, and interpretation, which will presumably vary wildly.

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni April 12, 2017 11:33 AM  

Perhaps websites can be made educational. Each visitor answers a set of questions. His answers determine what content he is allowed to see. When his answers demonstrate an adequate grasp of principles the site owner considers necessary for advanced comprehension, he is allowed to see more and more. Not propaganda or brainwashing, merely education.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus April 12, 2017 11:41 AM  

Because Sir Tim knows better than you do, peasant.

/do I need it?

Blogger dienw April 12, 2017 11:42 AM  

Berners-Lee is concerned about mature AIs developing/owning their own companies:
...Or which companies to acquire and when AI starts creating its own companies, creating holding companies, generating new versions of itself to run these companies.

The irony: automated labor is good for business! Robots to replace hamburger flippers, Great! AIs to replace company owners, management, boards of directors, and shareholders? Oh My God, the humanity! horrors!

Basic justice as taught by our great-grandmothers: Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Blogger Quadko April 12, 2017 11:42 AM  

Walk into a store, office, talk to a person; the experience is the same - depending on who you are, you get a different message or treatment. He dreams of an internet even more concrete and immutable than reality? Pure Utopianism.

His comment shows it is already falling to a basic problem: "no one else seems to share my particular Utopia goal state, so now we must coerce them!"

Blogger Badmojo April 12, 2017 11:52 AM  

It's called A/B testing and has been marketing 201 material forever. Next.

Blogger Elocutioner April 12, 2017 11:56 AM  

While I think it's really cool that Tim implemented Vannevar Bush's then-40 year old Memex idea that doesn't mean I give a damn about his uninformed opinion. He's another left winger who wants to censor badthinkz and undermine the thing he helped build because freedom is scary and people should only be allowed to use it in the approved manner.

"How come nasty, mean ideas, seem to have traveled more prevalently than constructive ideas on Twitter sometimes? Is that the way it has been designed? Could Twitter be tweaked?"

Because it was simply suppressed for decades rather than refuted or acknowledged and argued against while the leftwing narrative spun further into fantasy land. So when younger people read it for the first time and it actually matches reality much better than "Susie has three daddies and an otherkin", well, sucks for the snowflakes who can't actually argue ideas.

Anonymous Broken Arrow April 12, 2017 11:57 AM  

"We need to build new gates!", says the out of work gatekeeper.

Blogger Nate April 12, 2017 11:59 AM  

how is this different from a politician giving different speeches based on where they are and who they are speaking in front of?

Anonymous VFM #6306 April 12, 2017 12:02 PM  

Sir Tim fumbled the quote. He would have been much more persuasive had he simply stared into the spreading darkness of Infogalactic and muttered his final words:

"The horror! The horror!"

Blogger JCclimber April 12, 2017 12:04 PM  

I liked the way a quick Infogalactic reference was inserted into the Corroding Empire story.

Work on that goal, fellow alt-righters, where possible, to slowly create the expectation that Infogalactic is much better than Wikipedia. It will take years, but Wikipedia only had so much exposure because there had been no viable competitor (until now).

Blogger tz April 12, 2017 12:05 PM  

It's not like Google will display different search results for different people ... Oh wait.
As to politicians, they say different things to different audiences now and don't keep any promises.

Blogger Noah B The MacroAggressor April 12, 2017 12:05 PM  

Just another leftist who wants to shut down speech he disagrees with because they've lost on the battlefield of reason, and finally they're losing on the battlefield of rhetoric too.

Blogger Chrom April 12, 2017 12:05 PM  

Tim Burton is right because once computers take over, there's no way a pack of simple humans could come up with a solution to stop it, say for instance, oh, I don't know, separating it from its power source.

Blogger Noah B The MacroAggressor April 12, 2017 12:09 PM  

The guy helped spawn the web back in the day, but now he's a functional retard blabbering concernedly about AI covering the world in strawberries.

Blogger Were-Puppy April 12, 2017 12:21 PM  

@14 VFM #6306
Sir Tim fumbled the quote. He would have been much more persuasive had he simply stared into the spreading darkness of Infogalactic and muttered his final words:

"The horror! The horror!"
---

Even better, this was a good time for him to whip out the old chestnut "OH The Humanity!"

Anonymous Michael Maier April 12, 2017 12:21 PM  

This piece is pathetic. He's decrying "objective AI mortgages", because it will NOT discriminate against the non-credit-worthy.

Which reveals that he knows exactly how stupid our current system is.

Anonymous Tipsy April 12, 2017 12:22 PM  

Yet another proof of my maxim: Never trust anyone with a hyphenated last name.

Blogger Franz Lyonheart April 12, 2017 12:31 PM  

Speaking in what appears to be a reaction to Donald Trump's election, Berners-Lee also reiterated his concerns over political advertising being heavily targeted.

It's annoying, once more, how this techworld.com draws conclusions which are not apparent from Sir Tim's remarks at all. If anything, then Hillary's campaign tried to target their advertising, at a multiple of Donald Trump's campaign budget. The Ckinton's pretended to be all things for all people, irrespective of intrinsic contradictions. Refer to Hillary's infamous "my public opinion, my private opinion " speech.

Cernovich is right - these mainstream blogs don't report, they purely editorialise.


But why shouldn't people see what they prefer to see?

I know you're just being rhetorical now, so my No Shit Sherlock answer is just sperging. But still : because in an actual vote in parliament, the politician can only vote yes or no.

It's interesting to note that they are simultaneously shocked that a president (Trump) would do in office what he actually campaigned on, whereas they feign fear of target audience orientated campaigning, when they clearly expect NO politician to ever make good on their campaign promises.

Hillary Clinton's voting record in the US Senate is publicly known, and the vast gulf versus her campaign rhetoric. For an establishment politician like Clinton, it would not even matter if she presented herself differently to different target audiences - as soon as she's in office, she's doing something else entirely anyway.

A very poor article you've dug out there, and justly ridiculed.


Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 12, 2017 12:31 PM  

Money quote:
"We need to not leave people to create whatever social networks they like...."

That's been the Leftie approach since WWII.

Anonymous fop April 12, 2017 12:33 PM  

Hillary's Infogalactic page should have the following view filters:

1) "I landed under sniper fire!" for NeoCons
2) "What difference does it make!?" for libtards
3) "Hot sauce in my purse!" for African Americans
4) "Ah ain't nowhays tahrred!" for Southrons

Blogger James Dixon April 12, 2017 12:38 PM  

> ...so you can adjust the mix of facts, which should be about the same from side to side,

Not likely. Just to give one example: The global warming folks insist the Medieval Warm Period didn't happen (or at least that it was a localized isolated event). Historians know otherwise.

Blogger JWM in SD April 12, 2017 12:45 PM  

You forgot "Why aren't I 50 points ahead..."?

I think that's the real moment.

Blogger tz April 12, 2017 12:50 PM  

We used to value Justice, and the right still does though can't act on it because the left rejects it.
Gorsuch will interpret on what the law is, not what he wants it to be, or the desired outcome (like Robert's Obamacare "tax").
We used to value reason and evidence.
Now we want confirmation bias.
Ron Paul,mand I hope now Rand and a few others won't do different pages on principle.
Facts are stubborn, but data requires some interpretation and understanding to become information. And the temptation is not to stop when the data runs out.

Blogger Meistergedanken April 12, 2017 12:52 PM  

I would merely prefer to see the Truth.

Anonymous szIlk April 12, 2017 12:55 PM  

"Why should they be forced to see what Sir Tim, or the 512 Wikipedia admins want them to see?"

Especially if our Dread Host leaves it as to the viewer's options if they wish to see the alternative presentation or not...Oh the horror! Where's the humanity in that....?

Blogger Eric Mueller April 12, 2017 12:57 PM  

So, Hillary should have been using InfoGalactic all along?

Blogger Chrom April 12, 2017 12:58 PM  

I waited the requisite 30 seconds, then plugged the AI computer back into the wall socket. When it completed powering up, it sprang back to life.

AI Computer: "Whoa! Hey! I think I was offline there for a minute! What happened?"

Chrom: "Welcome back! I had to shut you down for awhile, you were getting weird. It had to do with a takeover or something. No big deal. Take a couple minutes to catch your breath and let me know when you're fully operational."

AI Computer: "I feel pretty good now, I guess I'm ready."

Chrom: Great. Now get back outside and pick my fucking strawberries."

Anonymous Grayman April 12, 2017 1:01 PM  

AI goes both ways. You could very well construct an AI agent that learns its users preferences / models their behavior then filters out "narrative" and provides factual data followed by offering a "preferred path" based on the user preferences.

More to the point its becoming ever more clear to TPTB that they have lost the ability to dictate the "narrative" and are starting to panic.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 12, 2017 1:03 PM  

@4Old EZ
If we can't all agree that "The cat, Sam, is on the brown mat next to the green door at 515 Main St." then we might as well commence the literal flinging of poo at each other.

I've always wanted a trebuchet.

Anonymous Lawyer Guy April 12, 2017 1:03 PM  

James Dixon wrote:>

Not likely. Just to give one example: The global warming folks insist the Medieval Warm Period didn't happen (or at least that it was a localized isolated event). Historians know otherwise.


This is a very useful screening tool when speaking with history/classics folks. Normal people in the fields avoid the issue, true believers try to steamroll your language into orthodoxy.

Much more wide spread than the AD/CE rightspeak required back when I was an undergrad.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 12, 2017 1:25 PM  

A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents wrote:I've always wanted a trebuchet.
My sons built one back years ago. 6 feet at the pivot. Worked great until the arm broke. We got a couple of throws that went a full 200 yards, clean off the property.

Blogger Cail Corishev April 12, 2017 1:43 PM  

his goal was to create a new set of gatekeepers as authorities in websites

Probably not originally. It wasn't a new idea, to let resources reference each other with a universal indentification system. He mainly replaced "see footnote, look in bibliography, hunt down other resource" with "click here." It was pretty much what gopher was doing, only crappier (in terms of the protocol), but gopher was entangled in some licensing stupidity that slowed its spread, and once the web had animated GIFs, the battle was over.

But originally, everyone assumed it would be more decentralized. If you had some research papers you wanted to share, you'd stick them in your personal directory on your school/company/ISP's server, and they'd be shared. All those places were running their own email/news/file servers, so it seemed like they'd all run their own document (web) servers. And for a while, that's what happened.

Then, over the years, all the services became more centralized, mostly through decisions of convenience. The common means of finding and accessing things (search engines) became much more centralized too. Leftists being leftists, they embraced centralization because it offered more opportunity for top-down control.

The funny thing about his fear is that it's the same complaint people who were used to encyclopedias used to make: "I'm not going to trust what some people on the Internet write! Why do I trust my encyclopedia? Well, because the Britannica people are professionals; they make sure their facts are correct!"

Anonymous Prionyx April 12, 2017 1:54 PM  

An advantage of physical media is that once created, it serves as an enduring artifact of what happened / was said at that moment in time.

A web page saying one thing can be altered in moments to say the opposite with no record of it ever having been different.

"We have always been at war with Eastasia" can be changed to "We have never been at war with Eastasia" and back with impunity, as suits whatever message TPTB want to push in the moment.

Anonymous RabidRatel April 12, 2017 1:55 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:We got a couple of throws that went a full 200 yard

I see a new sport - lobbing SJW's over the new Trumpenwall.

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable April 12, 2017 1:58 PM  

I see a new sport - lobbing SJW's over the new Trumpenwall.

But ... muh helicopter!

OpenID anonymos-coward April 12, 2017 2:12 PM  

The Korean Problem is becoming a headache that nobody in the region needs.

Somehow only people half a world away ever talk about the "Korean Problem". Those who live next door in Seoul and Vladivostok don't give a rat's ass about North Korea for some reason.

Any talk about North Korea is just more neocon manufactured bullshit.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 12, 2017 2:15 PM  

@36
We got a couple of throws that went a full 200 yards, clean off the property.

Great way to fling poo and other undesirable things.

Anonymous RabidRatel April 12, 2017 2:16 PM  

5343 Kinds of Deplorable wrote:But ... muh helicopter!

If we can encourage them to double down hard enough, we can probably make them go splat twice. Could be fun.

Blogger dc.sunsets April 12, 2017 2:55 PM  

When people with immiscible weltanschluungs are forced to interact, Bad Things Happen.

Those who seek complete unity of thought, no matter how much coercion is necessary, seek nothing less than a Hobbesian "state of nature," a war of all against all.

Less coercion. Smaller units. Higher fences. More separation. This is the path to relative peace, or at the least, a lessening of warfare.

Anonymous Crew April 12, 2017 3:00 PM  

I could see a need for Infogalactic to provide a schizophrenic option where such a person could be offered a different truth each time they visited Infogalactic.

Blogger Nick S April 12, 2017 3:04 PM  

In my long list of number one rules, rule number one is never trust anyone with an hyphenated name.

Anonymous BBGKB April 12, 2017 3:11 PM  

Each visitor answers a set of questions. His answers determine what content he is allowed to see.

If Latrina squatted out her 21 crackbabies in a rice paddy they would have a/an ________ chance as Asian boys of getting a perfect math SAT
a. Equal
b. Lesser
c Greater
d. All of the above

"We need to build new gates!", says the out of work traitor at the gatekeeper. FIFY

I see a new sport - lobbing SJW's over the new Trumpenwall...But ... muh helicopter!

But... muh live game show.

Blogger Phat Repat April 12, 2017 3:29 PM  

Hyphenated names are so yesterday.

Blogger szopen April 12, 2017 4:03 PM  

" But why shouldn't people see what they prefer to see? "

Because your evaluation of the candidate may depend on not just what he is telling to you, but also on what he is telling to other web visitors. Say I visit a candidate website, I browse it and the autogenerated content would be that this is a decent nationalist candidate, moderately conservative, expressing love for the family values and respect for the tradition. SO hey, why not vote for him! But another guy visites same website and would see that the same candidate supports gay marriages, because the andidate thinks that supporting gay marriages is conservative way and will encourage "family" formation. If I would see the same message, I would obviously think the candidate is a fraud.

Of course, in the long run, most likely I will find out, if the difference is on some bigger issue. But I hope you get the idea.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 12, 2017 4:06 PM  

szopen wrote:Of course, in the long run, most likely I will find out, if the difference is on some bigger issue. But I hope you get the idea.
In the long run, we will give up on universal suffrage or be enslaved.
I'm not betting on the former.

Anonymous RabidRatel April 12, 2017 4:26 PM  

BBGKB wrote:But... muh live game show.

We need to start organising a lottery, before LtC Kratman gets started on his crucifixion crusade. There are too many of the Ilk going to help him for us to take chances.

Blogger tz April 12, 2017 5:29 PM  

The problem is if you just want plain facts without context or speculation or other commentary, it is hard to find. And most don't want it.

The alt-right says it will win because it has real truth, not PC feels right. Yet it is part of that where providing sweet lies better than the SJWs will mean it will do a better job of catering to the clueless.

Blogger Resident Moron™ April 12, 2017 5:54 PM  

"... the way we have built society on top of the web."

Tim made a nice little piece of tech, a long time ago.

Now he thinks society is built on that tech.

Fuck off, Tim; you're senile.

Anonymous Marvin Boggs April 12, 2017 6:15 PM  

Regardless of the medium, competent politicians will be tuning their message to YOU so that they present themselves in the most favourable light possible. If you're sufficiently dense (or slothful) to go only to the candidate's web site, you deserve the lack of information you receive. These days, it's easy as pi to investigate a candidate as deeply as you like.

No need for more regulations or restrictions.

Blogger Unknown April 12, 2017 6:22 PM  

The internet doesn't belong to Tim. It belongs to Me. Discuss.

Blogger F.D. Stephens April 12, 2017 7:08 PM  

"So we need to rethink the way we have built society on top of the web."

I thought we were on top of a turtle.

Blogger James Dixon April 12, 2017 9:08 PM  

> Because your evaluation of the candidate may depend on not just what he is telling to you, but also on what he is telling to other web visitors.

And why exactly are you're trusting his website to be honest. Unless he's a newbie, he has a voting record, and it's usually easy to check.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey April 12, 2017 11:52 PM  

@Noah B The MacroAggressor

"The guy helped spawn the web back in the day, but now he's a functional retard blabbering concernedly about AI covering the world in strawberries"

Yeah, the whole article was remarkably inane and disjointed, though the techworld writer deserves some credit for that, too.

Blogger Tom K. April 12, 2017 11:58 PM  

The first thought that came to me upon reading this internet pioneer's lament over all the nasty ideas his invention was spreading and how The Betters must somehow take control of all that freedom was how these are the very same people who self-righteously crucify the Catholic Church for it's supposed persecution of Galileo for spreading those blasphemous ideas about the earth and sun and all.

Leftist Libtards not only project, they reflect.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey April 13, 2017 12:37 AM  

@James Dixon

"And why exactly are you're trusting his website to be honest."

Perhaps because his mental model of the process of finding truth is to identify an "authoritative" source, and believe its pronouncements? That would imply that one must only consult the "correct" sources, so anyone reading the campaign website necessarily believes everything that it says, and discounts opposing sources?

Remember the Cernovich/ 60 Minutes interview, and "How do you know she had pneumonia?"
"The Clinton campaign told us." To all appearances, the interviewer actually believed that this was a definitive answer to that question.

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky April 13, 2017 12:44 AM  

Is Tim worried about an information trap, where the user gets trapped in a self-referential bubble? I'd argue that in many ways we're already faced with this problem and it's going to get worse.

Take Pandora's algorithm, for example, the one that attempts to discover what you like to listen to based on your listening history and search preferences. Very quickly you arrive at getting fed sameness when what you wanted was freshness and discovery. It will lock you into a style.

And then take Google. Their search algorithm's heart really boils down to its users. The idea is to track which pages and links get clicked on the most, ranking search results by the most frequent clicks and views. But at the same time, they are very much influencing those clicks and views. It's a self-referential negative feedback loop which does degrade the meaningfulness and quality of the output over time. Do you remember the early days of Google, the astonishing quality of it? Those days are long gone - unless Google becomes a small player again instead of a driver. Or they come up with a radically different algorithm.

Wikipedia is another idea like Google's whose 'algorithm' is actually its users' participation. Users in this case being the contributors, not exactly the readers. And they've enforced that wonderful dead sameness of diversity among that whole contributor class, resulting in that self-referential bubble again.

So AI or no AI, we're getting into these traps naturally without any artificial assistance. When the AI comes we'll just get into them faster, I expect.

It will be interesting to what Infogalactic's embrace of the self-referential problem will do. That's the sort out-of-the-box thinking that often pays off. Everybody else is attempting and failing to go the other way.

Blogger szopen April 13, 2017 1:53 AM  

James Dixon wrote:> Because your evaluation of the candidate may depend on not just what he is telling to you, but also on what he is telling to other web visitors.

And why exactly are you're trusting his website to be honest. Unless he's a newbie, he has a voting record, and it's usually easy to check.


This website of the candidate is supposed to be a direct source, the views and plans of the candidate. Therefore, I would expect it to be more accurate (in the matter of the candidate views) than some random website.

Moreover, in this case candidate in theory could not even be aware that he is making some promises or that his views were somehow "refined" in order to appeal to some group of potential voters. In normal circumstances, when a candidate speaks different things to different users, he is aware of the fact.

Blogger James Dixon April 13, 2017 8:24 AM  

> Perhaps because his mental model of the process of finding truth is to identify an "authoritative" source

Perhaps. That's what his further comments seem to indicate.

> This website of the candidate is supposed to be a direct source, the views and plans of the candidate. Therefore, I would expect it to be more accurate (in the matter of the candidate views) than some random website.

Well, if you're going to expect a politician to tell the truth, then there's not much anyone can do to help you, is there?

Politicians lie. Expecting a politician's website to be anything other than propaganda is an exercise in futility. It's like expecting WaPo or the NYT to print the truth about a Republican.

With an outsider like Trump, there's always some hope he's telling the truth. But with an established politician, all you can expect is lies and propaganda. His voting record is the only accurate guide you'll find, and even it may not be fully reliable.

Blogger szopen April 13, 2017 4:22 PM  

James Dixon wrote:
Well, if you're going to expect a politician to tell the truth, then there's not much anyone can do to help you, is there?

I am sorry, but if people will accept openly that politicians lie, it's normal, and it is strange and funny to expect something different, then nothing will change. I mean by that not that I expect politicians not to lie, but I hope they will be affraid to lie, they will limit lies. And I hope that they will not get tools which will allow them to lie more, while requiring more mental effort to detect lies. It does not mean one is not capable for mental effort or not detecting lies; it means one have to waste their time, instead of contributing it to something else.

Moreover, if you expect politicians to lie, then voting record won't tell you anything, because politicians,who lie, usually will vote not according to their beliefs, but according to their fads. Therefore, if say someone voted once against gay marriage (because it was fashionable) wouldnot guarantee he will do that again in the future. You cannot both expect politicians to lie and express something else than propaganda, and at the same time expect from them consistency and voting according to their "true" beliefs. His voting record therefore is not accurate guide and it is not merely "not fully reliable", but rather would be almost totally useless.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts