7 ms·

> the ‘reputation age’, in which information will have value only if it is already filtered, evaluated and commented upon by others Isn't this just a return t

by ared38 9y ago

> the ‘reputation age’, in which information will have value only if it is already filtered, evaluated and commented upon by others Isn't this just a return to form? This sounds like what newspapers, publishers, academics, etc have been doing for hundreds of years. Even 'fake news' is nothing new; there have always been disreputable publishers willing to endorse wild conspiracies. The novel thing is that the filtering and evaluation has become decentralized. The article implores us to ask "Who are the authorities who believe it? What are my reasons for deferring to these authorities?", but increasingly we depend on our friends and likeminded crowds to approve information through sharing rather than engaging with an authority by subscribing to a newspaper or feed. Since the most exaggerated interpretations of a situation are almost inevitably the most shared, just checking the reputation of the source isn't enough. Consider the amount of mainstream media coverage on the "golden shower" aspect of the Trump dossier, when it was the least supported accusation. Or how Cuddy's provocative speech on body language went viral, despite other reputable researchers casting doubt. The structure of social media rewards stripping out context and nuance. So instead of questioning authority figures, question your tribe. Does it sound too good to be true? Did you learn something new, or just confirm existing beliefs? Have you taken the time to see how the other tribe thinks about this issue? You can only escape your filter bubble if you make a conscious effort to do so (I'm still trying).

ShabbosGoy 9y ago
I think what complicates matters is how our brains are collectively being conditioned by what I like to call “dopamine engineering”. If your brain is primed for information that produces a pleasurable response, it’s extremely difficult to think critically about that information. Couple that with filter bubbles and you have a docile population that’s easy to control.
- gt_ 9y ago
  I wish this view didn’t have a reputation of being conspiracy, because if the perch of criticality can be achieved, this process is very accessible and observable. Media theory can be very nuanced but the general ideas are daily routine for any American, but we lack daily awareness. The awareness is very obviously hindered by capitalism. The market incentivizes misrepresentation.
nkkollaw 9y ago
I agree with what you're saying, but tribes are often extremely biased, and might want to see what they believe instead of the other way around. In theory, newspapers (or other authority figures) should in theory report facts while staying impartial.
eldavido 9y ago
I think this is all too true. I think a lot of what's going on in the world right now is explainable through the death of ubiquitous, reliably-sourced information. Growing up in suburban Illinois, we had a local paper. It was nothing special but at least had a commitment (in theory) to report things accurately. In a world where most people get their news from social media, people are driven by their incentives/dopamine conditioning toward a lot of behaviors that promote neither truth, nor engagement with opposing views. What I find interesting, and absent from the conversation, is the social class dimension of this. The rich have always paid for reliable information, whether through newspaper subscriptions, magazines, or other high-quality private newsletters, some of them absurdly expensive (hundreds/thousands of dollars/year). As I get older, I find myself much, much more discerning about what I read. I've completely stopped using facebook (5-6 years ago), but now read The Economist, The SF Chronicle, Stratechery, and a handful of blogs from authors I trust. I don't know for sure, but I suspect "willingness to pay for good information" is a pretty strong correlate of wealth worldwide. I just have no idea whether it's causal, or a side effect of having disposable income, or what.
- zombieprocesses 9y ago
  > but now read The Economist, The SF Chronicle, Stratechery, and a handful of blogs from authors I trust. I I'm the complete opposite. I've gone from being a subscriber to the economist, nytimes, npr, etc and accepting them as gospel to seeing them for agenda pushing institutions. > but I suspect "willingness to pay for good information" is a pretty strong correlate of wealth worldwide. I think you are missing the point. The wealthy don't read the economist. The wealthy hire the people to write in the economist. Ultimately, social media is ( or at least has been ) the "people's" propaganda. The economist/etc are the wealthy elite's propaganda. It looks like the elite want to take over social media and make it part of their message platform as well.
  - gt_ 9y ago
    I come across reverence for these publications regularly but I don’t say anything because I fear bipartisan reactionism would label me a conspiracist before I have a chance to defend myself. I actually get most of my news filtered through HN comments and from independent podcasts by journalists I trust.
Nomentatus 9y ago
Certainly it's worth noting (as you do) how entertainified TV networks "news and magazine" shows have become, post-regulation; with a justifiable loss of reputation. This suggests that industry self-correction (as viewers realize they've often been duped or distracted rather than informed) has its limits.

by ared38 9y ago

ShabbosGoy 9y ago

I think what complicates matters is how our brains are collectively being conditioned by what I like to call “dopamine engineering”. If your brain is primed for information that produces a pleasurable response, it’s extremely difficult to think critically about that information. Couple that with filter bubbles and you have a docile population that’s easy to control.

gt_ 9y ago
I wish this view didn’t have a reputation of being conspiracy, because if the perch of criticality can be achieved, this process is very accessible and observable. Media theory can be very nuanced but the general ideas are daily routine for any American, but we lack daily awareness. The awareness is very obviously hindered by capitalism. The market incentivizes misrepresentation.

nkkollaw 9y ago

I agree with what you're saying, but tribes are often extremely biased, and might want to see what they believe instead of the other way around. In theory, newspapers (or other authority figures) should in theory report facts while staying impartial.

eldavido 9y ago

I think this is all too true. I think a lot of what's going on in the world right now is explainable through the death of ubiquitous, reliably-sourced information. Growing up in suburban Illinois, we had a local paper. It was nothing special but at least had a commitment (in theory) to report things accurately. In a world where most people get their news from social media, people are driven by their incentives/dopamine conditioning toward a lot of behaviors that promote neither truth, nor engagement with opposing views. What I find interesting, and absent from the conversation, is the social class dimension of this. The rich have always paid for reliable information, whether through newspaper subscriptions, magazines, or other high-quality private newsletters, some of them absurdly expensive (hundreds/thousands of dollars/year). As I get older, I find myself much, much more discerning about what I read. I've completely stopped using facebook (5-6 years ago), but now read The Economist, The SF Chronicle, Stratechery, and a handful of blogs from authors I trust. I don't know for sure, but I suspect "willingness to pay for good information" is a pretty strong correlate of wealth worldwide. I just have no idea whether it's causal, or a side effect of having disposable income, or what.

zombieprocesses 9y ago
> but now read The Economist, The SF Chronicle, Stratechery, and a handful of blogs from authors I trust. I I'm the complete opposite. I've gone from being a subscriber to the economist, nytimes, npr, etc and accepting them as gospel to seeing them for agenda pushing institutions. > but I suspect "willingness to pay for good information" is a pretty strong correlate of wealth worldwide. I think you are missing the point. The wealthy don't read the economist. The wealthy hire the people to write in the economist. Ultimately, social media is ( or at least has been ) the "people's" propaganda. The economist/etc are the wealthy elite's propaganda. It looks like the elite want to take over social media and make it part of their message platform as well.
- gt_ 9y ago
  I come across reverence for these publications regularly but I don’t say anything because I fear bipartisan reactionism would label me a conspiracist before I have a chance to defend myself. I actually get most of my news filtered through HN comments and from independent podcasts by journalists I trust.

Nomentatus 9y ago

Certainly it's worth noting (as you do) how entertainified TV networks "news and magazine" shows have become, post-regulation; with a justifiable loss of reputation. This suggests that industry self-correction (as viewers realize they've often been duped or distracted rather than informed) has its limits.