Post AWW5iDPfaPErWnoLOS by bblfish@mathstodon.xyz
(DIR) More posts by bblfish@mathstodon.xyz
(DIR) Post #AWUgugl7c1R60QjhPE by bblfish@mathstodon.xyz
2023-06-08T20:34:23Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
A serious puzzle: how do you tell what is disinformation and what isn’t? Are the bits on the wire different?
(DIR) Post #AWUgwdhPxXMx5yvwvo by Hyolobrika@berserker.town
2023-06-08T21:32:32Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@bblfishYou don't. You allow it all.
(DIR) Post #AWUlvuDdYNzroNTQAa by bblfish@mathstodon.xyz
2023-06-08T22:28:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Hyolobrika that is the modal logic point of you in a way. All complete coherent sets of statements, form a possible world. Truth is relative to a world. That is a proposition P is a set of possible world. It is true at a world w if w is a world in P.Consider P = bblfish is in MunichThere are many ways the world could be and P be true. There is a world in which it is raining now in Munich and there is a world in which it’s not raining in Munich and I am there. There is a world in which there are n grains of sand on a beach in Normandy and P is true and there is a world in which the number of grains n+1….Information in so far as it is syntactic is just a set of sentences. Let’s assume these have a conventional interpretation in a language L: that is a mapping of sentences to sets of possible worlds. Whether a sentence is true or not depends on where the actual world is. Therefore, we cannot just by looking at sentences find out if they are true or not, unless they are mathematical statements and so true at all possible worlds.In so far as disinformation is related to truth or falsity, it can only be determined whether it is true or not by looking at the world. So part of the answer then is that we cannot determine if some sentences phi is disinformation just by looking at the sentence phi.
(DIR) Post #AWW2wu1feKEHshthvE by Hyolobrika@berserker.town
2023-06-09T13:13:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bblfishI didn't mean to say that truth is relative. My position is that truth and falsehood cannot be determined a priori in order to ban falsehood. You have to allow the debate otherwise you will never know if you are wrong.This, however, doesn't apply to ethical statements AFAICS.
(DIR) Post #AWW35fguJcr81qMo5I by bblfish@mathstodon.xyz
2023-06-08T22:35:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Hyolobrika For controversial or scientifically disputed topics, the position relative to competing theories of the actual world is in dispute. And so the different positions put forward statements that the opposition, then tries to debunk by finding inconsistencies, in the theory, or by finding facts that contradict it. This is the dialogical conception of the scientific process. It is a process of locating the actual world with respect to different theories through dialogueTraditionally, if someone disagreed with a proposition P they could say P is false and then defend that proposition. But that is not what is happening when we speak of disinformation. Disinformation is a concept that comes with that of information. And the concept of information originates with information theory, which was about the effectiveness of sending signals over a wire. So there is something very mechanical about the notion of information which, in a way lacks semantics. Disinformation, it seems is related to a corruption of the mechanical process of transmitting information. Perhaps by trying to make it look like information originates from a responsible news source – IE one that can be made legally responsible for what it says that is in a court of law where the dialogical process holds.
(DIR) Post #AWW35gIq2bCHvU76Cu by Hyolobrika@berserker.town
2023-06-09T13:15:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bblfishAre you saying that disinformation/misinformation aren't just "things that disagree with the establishment/mainstream" nor just boils down to that?
(DIR) Post #AWW4hq5mC0cdFHlM0m by bblfish@mathstodon.xyz
2023-06-09T13:33:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Hyolobrika > My position is that truth and falsehood cannot be determined a priori in order to ban falsehood. We agree. Put in terms of possible worlds (some prefer the notion of models), we don't know which possible world we are in precisely, given that we are finite beings with very finite knowledge. So in a way truth is relative-to-a-world, but that is just as it should be. If the state of affairs were different, different statements should be true.
(DIR) Post #AWW5iDPfaPErWnoLOS by bblfish@mathstodon.xyz
2023-06-09T13:44:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Hyolobrika I am thinking that using "disinformation" to mean "does not agree with the establishment" is a very bad way to use the term, and also very bad for the establishment longer term. I think one should use the term "disinformation" as something related to "information", which is about the passing of strings of bits from one computer to another without loss. Lightweight additions to such a theory that would allow one for example to express who said what and for whom the message was intended, when it was written, etc is something we in computer science could tackle without requiring us to take over the job of law courts or debating chambers. We software engineers need to provide the framework so that truth claims can be made, the agent making them can make themselves known (anonymous communication should also be allowed) and their relation to legal institutions can be made visible to people out there. This would allow people to understand the legal weight of a claim: is it just some person expressing an opinion, or are they making themselves legally available to criticism if something goes wrong?https://medium.com/@bblfish/use-cases-for-the-web-of-nations-361c24d5eaee
(DIR) Post #AWWZPxgALKwg8tjsNE by Hyolobrika@berserker.town
2023-06-09T19:17:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bblfishI would say that "truth" can be relative to a world, but actual truth is "truth" in the real world.
(DIR) Post #AWWZa84kXmwfHa5P9s by bblfish@mathstodon.xyz
2023-06-09T19:19:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Hyolobrika well yes because actuality is an indexical like “here” or “now”. The actual world is the one you are located in.
(DIR) Post #AWWeBK8h3QR1EDvEBM by Hyolobrika@berserker.town
2023-06-09T20:10:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bblfish>https://scribe.rip/bblfish/use-cases-for-the-web-of-nations-361c24d5eaee🤔Running commentary:As for #1. Enhance Trust in small businesses: that sounds interesting and probably useful, but I think it should be extended to allow trust links from institutions other than governments. It should be configurable in the browser which organisations the user trusts (which may or may not include their government).As for #2. Help stand out: it's starting to feel a bit authoritarian and sinister now.>Having official information readily available in the browser showing the domain of expertise of the company or institution behind a web site would hugely increase our ability to work together on urgent problems.Why? Knowledge is something that comes from the real world, filtered through each individual's sense organs and brain, not officially deemed "Legitimate Institutions of Knowledge".A lot of these ideas of yours involve an enhanced role for the state, which I don't like.>This is made all the more problematic as widely available machine translation technologies are exposing people to web sites published in regions they know little of.I don't understand why that would make a difference.As for #3. Make Fake News Web sites stand out: this one is really sinister. Who defines "fake news"?The great thing about the internet is that it is (relatively) anarchic, and should be made more so, not less.You can fuck right off with your knowledge gatekeeping bullshit.
(DIR) Post #AWWeCx6jejsgNOmaeW by Hyolobrika@berserker.town
2023-06-09T20:11:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bblfishCc: @thatguyoverthere
(DIR) Post #AWWeSfe4LfHKqprxpo by Hyolobrika@berserker.town
2023-06-09T20:14:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bblfishThe legacy media is not the standard.
(DIR) Post #AWWl1EUNuE5eUKCeqe by moffintosh@berserker.town
2023-06-09T21:27:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Hyolobrika @bblfish This, however, doesn't apply to ethical statements AFAICS.Why?
(DIR) Post #AWXkVXB554PKLE1EfY by bblfish@mathstodon.xyz
2023-06-10T08:56:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Hyolobrika You may want a more detailed geopolitical/legal explanation of what the #WebOfNations is about: https://co-operating.systems/2020/06/01/WoN.pdfTo your points:1. The WoN aims to enhance trust in all institutions: medical, universities, businesses large and small, schools, charities, etc... especially across national borders. It does not help trust by saying these are good websites, but just by making it clear that they are who they claim they are legally.2. Allowing Web Sites that are legally called NewsSites to make clear that they have legal responsibilities is not sinister. It also does not stop other websites from existing as they do now. It does not say that News sites are telling the truth either. All it does is tell you that they are located in a particular country, were founded at a particular time, and have certain owners, legal obligations...3. "Fake news sites stand out" well, yes, those websites that were put up overnight and were just publishing "news" for clicks with names like "washingtonXXX" but were run from Eastern Europe by teenagers. Those could still be visited, but it would be easier for old people to see that those were spoofing sites. > The great thing about the internet is that it is (relatively) anarchic. Yes, and that is great. The point is not to remove the anarchic side but just to make it easier to see what responsibility sites have. Also, the aim is to make it more decentralised. At present, it is huge corporations that benefit from the anarchy: Apple, Facebook, Twitter, MS... They have global name visibility, which people trust. Your local pizzaria web site should have the same.