From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm1-x335.google.com (mail-wm1-x335.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::335]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AC5A3B2A4 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 17:59:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm1-x335.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-40e552dfa5dso3182615e9.1 for ; Tue, 09 Jan 2024 14:59:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1704841167; x=1705445967; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=yOAYCs6LivCaCQcikmGTuvLNkHoVs8Bdv7hX5JuSbtc=; b=ShuWPA1WrZXQ5buVDrKQobpcxrANhC9YFwpVDEW9LCwEqPIQig0pGND2lNfqs+wr/1 9Ypt8AMNB3LtFAwcvxOL1QFSmRcyLaPf9Rrk/LRIqkpUcNTHSt9btoepicRL1gj+YwW8 a6P6yf9VMG4+OWc84YUgAsE6kMF3Z/PD/7kKZZlLm6ol6qflUb0QfwnqjHkrv8NsjODw Lvdh1Ln4jB0ONAdnfoFTpv072faKh2U/8brUE3B3csCyEOVd9gJs77RPqXObQ9DoW8i8 vyWINje6WZ3f8b7xcvDX3ALtoLZH+4Q/1n6vVJo+yBsOzcDSeH31vAnXc3/z7MelDDu8 LKog== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1704841167; x=1705445967; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=yOAYCs6LivCaCQcikmGTuvLNkHoVs8Bdv7hX5JuSbtc=; b=SuhniVwiwzwjPc0ABC6GsUUaWIkx4whHoqbvXwAuoihlxLCvmora2ueK4SyC1Zrf/n x8vOlKmEYNzJXAmT+ru7K2OwYP9xNpfa/v/Bgjn2t5gmzfzLmbdOIbS6d9SqHNtVcTQR CH716FQjgrZ31S8PeRip0/gAIcbczvvBpJGT9VIz6aIA3c5QF5JzifL0cOdls7DP/biH jQ0yk0UNpcLDBHn0vJawdnJPVZ0mD0P4a2vFke6lBJvMvAxeTLhZtU0poLTs1f9836vR iVl9cFzoZYnRUNF52hn59b2Ux7ZcdGovpivlmL/O4mWkJTFIBpYdLa50VFkcWFeL38+m BZfQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yyg2IMNTsmY4YUVaxpaAqiAxnkDVCGJ/8wCo0DPFjVI1yeOyhC9 2cKZlkkNHlD0YBoyAQS1+Dp2yn9FfaDB5yrzUgmJMYqG X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEZGDRdDvFEZ7vi5QLtwq8Ln/QqyWnngDKRWAjrkKw7MgGvJ2gvfQzWktk04bNI8oTDLy00lshkDaLy7mBupac= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:4e86:b0:40d:83e1:6c62 with SMTP id f6-20020a05600c4e8600b0040d83e16c62mr28086wmq.7.1704841166772; Tue, 09 Jan 2024 14:59:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8c29e360-7cbc-4b67-a669-640fdc6e6fa6@3kitty.org> In-Reply-To: <8c29e360-7cbc-4b67-a669-640fdc6e6fa6@3kitty.org> From: "David Bray, PhD" Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 15:59:14 -0700 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back=21_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_asp?= =?UTF-8?Q?ects_heard_this_time=21?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000024debb060e8b4400" Subject: Re: [NNagain] The growing challenges of discerning authentic vs. inauthentic information and identity X-BeenThere: nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?= List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2024 22:59:29 -0000 --00000000000024debb060e8b4400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Also on history let=E2=80=99s consider the 1890=E2=80=99s and how both Puli= tzer and Hearst made their money with sensationalist headlines that may not have matched the actual facts of the scenario. The U.S. ended up going to war with Spain over a disinformation event - Remember the Maine! The Congress was also slightly more polarized at the time than it is now. What if we=E2=80=99re seeing a Second Gilded Age? On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 13:00 Jack Haverty via Nnagain < nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > IMHO, similar issues of judgement and trust have come up in the past, and > it might be worth researching the history. > > In the context of the Web, during the 90s there was a similar concern > about categorizing content available on the Internet. The issue at the > time was providing mechanisms to protect children from pornography. But > today's issues of truth and misinformation are very similar -- e.g., you > might categorize an inaccurate news post as "pornographic". > > I suggest looking at some work from the 90s. At the time, I was working > at Oracle as "Internet Architect", and served as corporate representative > to W3C (see https://www.w3.org/ ). Thw W3C group, led by Tim > Berners-Lee, was intensely involved in setting technical standards for th= e > Web. > > A project was formed call PICS - Platform for Internet Content Selection. > Essentially it created mechanisms to add metadata to existing content on > the Web, and use it to filter content for end users. > > See https://www.w3.org/PICS/ for the history. PICS is now obsolete and > was replaced by something called POWDER - see > https://www.w3.org/2007/powder/ > > I wasn't involved in POWDER, which occurred after my involvement with W3C > ended. But I was very involved in the creation of PICS. > > The main idea of PICS was to enable the creation of "rating schemes" to > categorize content. Since the focus was on pornography, one likely ratin= g > scheme was the classical G/R/X ratings popular at the time for > characterizing movies. But anyone, or any group, could define a rating > scheme to suit their views. > > Having selected a rating scheme they liked, any group, or individual, > could assign ratings to specific content. Perhaps you think that movie i= s > "R", but I think it's "X". As a judge once noted - "I can't define it, > but I know it when I see it". Opinions can of course differ. > > Ratings were to be kept in one or more databases, accessible on the > Internet to anyone. Content could be identified by a URL, or perhaps a > unique cryptographic "hash" of the content itself, in case it was moved. > Each record would contain 4 items - the identity of the content, the > identity of the rating scheme used, the identity of the person or group > making the rating, and the rating which they assigned. Such technology w= as > easily within the capabilities of databases even then. > > On the "consumer" side, applications (e.g., browsers) would have settings > that could be applied to indicate which rating system was to be used, whi= ch > groups or persons making ratings were to be trusted, and what ratings of > content would be actually viewable by the human end user. > > The idea was that various groups (content creators, reviewers, religious > groups, community activists, etc.) would define their preferred rating > scheme and then assign ratings, at least to content they deemed > objectionable. > > End users, e.g., parents, could then set up their children's web browsers > to use the rating scheme of whichever group(s) they trusted to make > "correct" ratings, and set their children's browsers appropriately to > restrict the content they could see. A content consumer simply selects > the rating service they trust. > > It seems straightforward how a similar mechanism might be applied to > instead rate accuracy of Internet content, and allow consumers to choose > which, if any, ratings are applied to filter the information they see, > based on who they trust to make such judgements. > > PICS was actually implemented in popular browser software. But, as far > as I know, no group ever designed their preferred rating scheme, or > actually assigned ratings to any content then available on the Internet. > The mechanisms were there. But apparently no one used them. The loud > voices of "Something has to be done!" didn't actually themselves do > anything. > > Even if PICS/POWDER isn't appropriate for handling misinformation, an > analysis of why it failed to be used might be revealing. > > > Jack Haverty > > > _______________________________________________ > Nnagain mailing list > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain > --00000000000024debb060e8b4400 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Also on history let=E2=80=99s consider the 1890=E2=80=99s= and how both Pulitzer and Hearst made their money with sensationalist head= lines that may not have matched the actual facts of the scenario. The U.S. = ended up going to war with Spain over a disinformation event - Remember the= Maine!=C2=A0

The Congre= ss was also slightly more polarized at the time than it is now. What if we= =E2=80=99re seeing a Second Gilded Age?=C2=A0

On Tue, = Jan 9, 2024 at 13:00 Jack Haverty via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
IMHO, similar issues of judgement and trust have come up in the past, and it might be worth researching the history.

In the context of the Web, during the 90s there was a similar concern about categorizing content available on the Internet.=C2=A0=C2= =A0 The issue at the time was providing mechanisms to protect children from pornography.=C2=A0 But today's issues of truth and misinformation a= re very similar -- e.g., you might categorize an inaccurate news post as "pornographic".

I suggest looking at some work from the 90s.=C2=A0 At the time, I was working at Oracle as "Internet Architect", and served as corp= orate representative to W3C (see https://www.w3.org/ ).=C2=A0 Thw W3C group, led by Tim Berners-Lee, was intensely involved in setting technical standards for the Web.

A project was formed call PICS - Platform for Internet Content Selection.=C2=A0 Essentially it created mechanisms to add metadata to existing content on the Web, and use it to filter content for end users. =C2=A0

See https://www.= w3.org/PICS/ for the history.=C2=A0 PICS is now obsolete and was replaced by something called POWDER - see https://w= ww.w3.org/2007/powder/

I wasn't involved in POWDER, which occurred after my involvement with W3C ended.=C2=A0 But I was very involved in the creation of PICS.<= br>
The main idea of PICS was to enable the creation of "rating scheme= s" to categorize content.=C2=A0 Since the focus was on pornography, one likely rating scheme was the classical G/R/X ratings popular at the time for characterizing movies.=C2=A0=C2=A0 But anyone, or any group, c= ould define a rating scheme to suit their views.

Having selected a rating scheme they liked, any group, or individual, could assign ratings to specific content.=C2=A0 Perhaps you think that movie is "R", but I think it's "X".= =C2=A0=C2=A0 As a judge once noted - "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it".= =C2=A0=C2=A0 Opinions can of course differ.

Ratings were to be kept in one or more databases, accessible on the Internet to anyone.=C2=A0 Content could be identified by a URL, or perhaps a unique cryptographic "hash" of the content itself, = in case it was moved.=C2=A0 Each record would contain 4 items - the identity of the content, the identity of the rating scheme used, the identity of the person or group making the rating, and the rating which they assigned.=C2=A0 Such technology was easily within the capabilities of databases even then.

On the "consumer" side, applications (e.g., browsers) would h= ave settings that could be applied to indicate which rating system was to be used, which groups or persons making ratings were to be trusted, and what ratings of content would be actually viewable by the human end user.

The idea was that various groups (content creators, reviewers, religious groups, community activists, etc.) would define their preferred rating scheme and then assign ratings, at least to content they deemed objectionable.

End users, e.g., parents, could then set up their children's web browsers to use the rating scheme of whichever group(s) they trusted to make "correct" ratings, and set their children's brows= ers appropriately to restrict the content they could see.=C2=A0=C2=A0 A con= tent consumer simply selects the rating service they trust.

It seems straightforward how a similar mechanism might be applied to instead rate accuracy of Internet content, and allow consumers to choose which, if any, ratings are applied to filter the information they see, based on who they trust to make such judgements.

PICS was actually implemented in popular browser software.=C2=A0=C2=A0 = But, as far as I know, no group ever designed their preferred rating scheme, or actually assigned ratings to any content then available on the Internet.=C2=A0=C2=A0 The mechanisms were there.=C2=A0=C2=A0 But appare= ntly no one used them.=C2=A0=C2=A0 The loud voices of "Something has to be done!&qu= ot; didn't actually themselves do anything.

Even if PICS/POWDER isn't appropriate for handling misinformation, an analysis of why it failed to be used might be revealing.
<= br>
Jack Haverty


_______________________________________________
Nnagain mailing list
Nnagain@= lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
--00000000000024debb060e8b4400--