Warning sounded on web's future

[inanna]

Source: BBC

The internet needs a way to help people separate rumour from real science, says the creator of the World Wide Web.

Talking to BBC News Sir Tim Berners-Lee said he was increasingly worried about the way the web has been used to spread disinformation.

Sir Tim was speaking in advance of an announcement about a Foundation he has helped create that will vet websites.

The Foundation will brand sites that it has found to be trustworthy and reliable sources of information.


Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7613201.stm

[Catch22Dem]

1. As much as I'm against restricting the net in ANY way, I support this

The freedom to disseminate at will to anyone, anywhere in the world, should not include lies and disinformation. Of course, we'll have to go ahead and shut down foxnews.com.

[cottonseed]

38. Would you support it if owned by Rupert Murdoch?

Because if anything can be used to control the message on the internet, I can tell you power and money will find a way to gain ownership of it.

[krkaufman]

39. Doesn't have anything to do with blocking or shutting down sites...

... just providing a veracity authority, for objective reality.

[liberal N proud]

2. Simple, Don't take the first thing you read as fact

Not without corroborating information

You have to have some common sense about information from any source. Books, newspapers, television can and is in many times slanted.

The web is no different. People just need to stop going with the first thing they read as reality. The web just spread misinformation faster than a mis guided book or a deceptive newspaper article. Same goes for the talking heads.

[nebenaube]

13. ah yes....

but it works both ways as it is very easy to create a million sock puppet sites to discredit an item of truth as well.

[Demeter]

3. People Believe What They Want to Believe

At least on the Web, the corporate Thought Control gains no purchase...

[nolabels]

51. Some even believe that everything that is learned the internet is lie

Surely and obviously there is no shortage of those type of people either :-)

[annabanana]

4. Nope, sorry... Who will watch the watchers?

Internet sites are vetted the same way ALL information is vetted. The baldest liars are convicted by their own words..

[bananas]

30. Who vets the vetters?

[Terry in Austin]

37. Ding ding ding... we have a winner! nt

[depakid]

5. Hard to disagree with this statement:

"On the web the thinking of cults can spread very rapidly and suddenly a cult which was 12 people who had some deep personal issues suddenly find a formula which is very believable," he said. "A sort of conspiracy theory of sorts and which you can imagine spreading to thousands of people and being deeply damaging."
----------

Whether "branding" sites for accuracy will help- its hard to say, but anyone reading the health forum on DU can understand the frustration.

[Dogtown]

11. The problem with the proposed "solution"

is that *many* people want desperately to believe in some things, whether it's a cure for genital warts, a 200 mpg carburetor, or jesus-inna-grilledcheese. These individuals believe now, and will believe, that the "government/establishment" intends to keep them from the very thing they want/need. Sometimes they're right, which exacerbates the situation.

They will transfer their distrust to the new "raters" as merely another device of repression. I laud the concerns of the designer, but this effort will be a total fail.

[pipoman]

6. The web has brought more truth to news

than it has bolstered rumor. Prior to web based news it happened that AP/UPI and other major news sources would pick up a fictisious story, publish it, then when it was determined false wouldn't bother to retract on the same scale as it was originally published thus perpetuating the lie. Now when a story published by a major news outlet is found false it makes more of a splash than the original story did. Further, anyone who uses blogs, forums, and obscure websites as their news source without vetting the information are likely not bright enough to influence anyone anyway.

[biermeister]

7. we need someone to protect us because we aren't

bright enough to do our own research and determine the truth ourselves. Please send the "Truth Police" to help!!

[Democat]

8. What about websites about religion?

Who decides what is a cult and what is a religion, just as an example of why this won't work.

[Dogtown]

12. I volunteer!!!

Let Dogtown at them!


I have to admit; putting someone as obviously intolerant of religion as I am would result in unacceptable repression. This entire concept is flawed.

I admire those who're concerned about web-accuracy, but they are being naive.

[nebenaube]

14. by definition

are not all religons in fact 'cults' if they are mainstream and 'occults' if they are hidden?

[shrike]

22. Depends on who you talk to, I guess

The law enforcement types who monitor cults would say there is a distinct difference between a Presbyterian who attends church once a month and a person who signs over her house to a religious group which then monitors her every move.

BTW, according to the same types of people there are also financial cults, pseudoscience cults (no, not Star Trek conventions), "personal growth" cults, even weight loss cults.

[jakem]

9. WER SCREWMNED! NO FAKTS HEAR!!!

NO U GIYS. IMA SERIES...

[Judi Lynn]

46. TREW! YOUR WRITE. n/t

[kristopher]

10. I agree with the diagnosis

but I don't think the solution will work long term.

The weakspot of such branding is exemplified by the attempt to create "factcheck" type websites. The liars just create their own version of a factcheck site and you are right back to where you started.

Another example is "green" branding.

I don't have a better solution to offer unfortunately.

[mogster]

15. Interesting, from same article:

The Foundation will also look at concerns that the web has become less democratic, and its use influenced too much by large corporations and vested interests.

"I think that question is very important and may be settled in the next few years," said Sir Tim.

"One of the things I always remain concerned about is that that medium remains neutral," he said.

"It's not just where I go to decide where to buy my shoes which is the commercial incentive - it's where I go to decide who I'm going to trust to vote," he said.

This is a development that has been going on for some time, just look at this snippet from 1998:

At this month's Newsworld conference on the global news industry in Barcelona, Nato spokesman Jamie Shea said the Kosovo conflict had taught the organisation several lessons about the impact of the media.

If Nato were involved in a future campaign, he said, the most effective way of waging a media war would be to try to create "rival (news) outlets", the Internet and radio being ideal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/monitoring/528620.stm

[trthnd4jstc]

16. There are some firms that do work to fact check information.

It may be a good idea for those who are disseminating news to put themselves under review of a third party verifier such as:
Fact Check: http://www.factcheck.org/
Media Matters: http://mediamatters.org/index
Park Library, North Carolina: http://parklibrary.jomc.unc.edu/factcheckers2004.html

If I had stock in a media outlet, I would motion to have my firm have a third party verification. It would be a badge of Honor to behave according to the high ethical standards taught in journalism schools.

[sudopod]

17. Issac Asimov called

He wants his Foundation back.

[Odin2005]

18. Mr. Berners-Lee is totally correct, sadly.

Look at all people here on DU in the Health (Scare) forums spewing BS about vaccines causing autism. :eyes:

[Terry in Austin]

36. The question is who will filter the BS?

We can read the forum and do our own filtering, thank you very much. Just takes a little more work than reading a single news blurb and swallowing it whole.

Where Berners-Lee goes wrong is with the implicit claim that he or some other news "authority" should go in and filter it for us.

Now that's BS!

[Tesha]

52. Actually, here at DU, we've proven time and time again that we *CAN'T* do our own filtering.

The same credulous bullshit pops up over and over again, with
new rubes joining in the chorus every time.

Tesha

[Hannah Bell]

41. Those nuts in Health, posting BS like : "NewScientist: Research funded by drug companies biased"

Research funded by drug companies is more likely to produce results that favour the sponsor's product, reveals a new study."

Researchers analysed 30 previous reports examining pharmaceutical industry-backed research and found the conclusions of such research were four times more likely to be positive than research backed by other sponsors.

"What we found was that in almost all cases there was a bias - a rather heavy bias - in favour when the study was industry funded," study leader Joel Lexchin told New Scientist.

The main reasons for this, say the team, may be that positive studies are more likely to be published than negative ones.

Also, inappropriate comparison drugs may be used in these trials, skewing findings in favour of the tested product.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3781


Yep, regulation of the internet would protect us from "BS" like this.....

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. Fear of Crowds

The usual...

[Hubert Flottz]

20. The people who pull the strings can't handle the truth.

They want to shut down anyone who don't get with their program.

[JeanGrey]

21. What??? Who decides what is "trustworthy"? Sorry, NO.

This is censorship, plain and simple. NO NO NO

[all.of.me]

23. lol- Come and vet my website that is all personal essays! Bring it on! lol nt

[Nambe]

24. Fox News - The President - My Lawyer-----Trustworthy

The web is one of many ways of relating to others on many levels. For me, it is a valuable way of cross checking what I am told without leaving my home or office. This guy needs to get out more.

[Hannah Bell]

42. Exactly: a variety of sources & cross-references for little money.

If you're inclined to use it, invaluable.

[AndyTiedye]

25. And Why Should We Trust the Entity Doing the "Vetting"?

[ShortnFiery]

26. Exactly! This is the FIRST democratically oriented venue and the Power Elite are going to ruin it.

All to keep "us peaseants" dumbed down.

Assholes!

[Overseas]

27. No thank you. I have Snopes, Fact Check and others to investigate rumors.

I don't want the Cato Institute or American Enterprise or a British right wing think tank to vet websites for me.

NO CENSORSHIP THANK YOU>

[slackmaster]

28. Tin Berners-Lee is actually a Space Alien

But he's got a terrific new diet.

[Duer 157099]

29. Maybe critical thinking will have a comeback as a result

Who knows, when people have to actually think for themselves, they might discover it's not so bad.

What we don't need are more people filtering the "truth" for us!

[tridim]

31. What about Cable Television?

IMO Faux is much worse than the web because there are millions of Americans who believe EVERYTHING Faux tells them without question. My Mother is a prime example. She believes everything on Faux and nothing on the web including stories from traditional print media.

At least people like us who get most of our information on the web usually check multiple sources and have a good BS-detector.

[Algorem]

32. They say this Sir Tim guy is totally full of shit.

That's what I've heard everybody say.

[Celebration]

33. And, the words of JFK

[Buenaventura]

34. hey, trust him - he's a peer of the realm! oh, and about those WMDs ...

[Terry in Austin]

35. DIY journalism: the whole point

The Web is not mediated, as are traditional media like print and television. That's the beauty of it. It presents us with multiple raw sources, and gives us both the freedom and the responsibility to vet those sources for ourselves.

With print and television, it was assumed that purveyors of those media would take on the role of a "trusted" mediator who would vet and judge the legitimacy of the stories they purveyed. Something would be true only after they gave it their official stamp. They would do the vetting for us, as if we couldn't do it ourselves.

In making this lazy bargain, we accepted them as the source of legitimacy in exchange for being excused from applying our own research and critical thinking skills.

Remind me -- why are we giving them this trust for something we could be (and should be) doing for ourselves?

[Hannah Bell]

40. Who'll do the vetting? Gov't's been captured, corps are fraudsters.

NewScientist: Research funded by drug companies is 'biased'
Science? Who knows what it is anymore?


"Research funded by drug companies is more likely to produce results that favour the sponsor's product, reveals a new study."

Researchers analysed 30 previous reports examining pharmaceutical industry-backed research and found the conclusions of such research were four times more likely to be positive than research backed by other sponsors.

"What we found was that in almost all cases there was a bias - a rather heavy bias - in favour when the study was industry funded," study leader Joel Lexchin told New Scientist.

The main reasons for this, say the team, may be that positive studies are more likely to be published than negative ones.

Also, inappropriate comparison drugs may be used in these trials, skewing findings in favour of the tested product.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3781

Alert | Add to my Journal

[JCMach1]

43. the net deconstructs the argument about elites and information

Even in the past there has been much disinformation... sometimes it has been called science, or journalism etc.

If you don't believe this, just open an encyclopedia from the 1920's and see what it has to say about race.

The British upper-class is concerned about the Democracy of the internet... hence the need to 'vet' it.

The job really belongs to schools and universities who really need to tackle media and information literacy and teach the critical thinking skills that would go along with these...

[Hannah Bell]

45. who do you think runs the universities, etc.?

l

[JCMach1]

47. The key is critical thinking skills...

Universities don't have to be about economic elites...

Since I saw your Marx icon..., I am thinking along the lines of Robert Paul Wolff's "The Ideal of the University"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Paul_Wolff

[Hannah Bell]

48. sure, ideally. but in point of fact, they've always been run by elites.

[redqueen]

49. Precisely. (nt)

[kayell]

50. Yes. Not telling people WHAT to think, but HOW to think and evaluate for themselves

Use the 5 W's to Evaluate an Internet Site (used in teaching students but most adults need this too. Not to mention to use this same way of thought in evaluating any information source.)
http://www.dianelauer.com/fivewww/webeval.html

[struggle4progress]

44. What a great idea! Let's start with Seals of Approval for politicians and TV stations!

Who is this guy McCain?
I dunno. I never heard of him
Why doesn't he sport a Youth Against War & Fascism sticker on his forehead?
I dunno. Maybe we shouldn't vote for him

[entanglement]

53. Very poor choice of headline by the BBC