[NNagain] The growing challenges of discerning authentic vs. inauthentic information and identity

[David Bray, PhD]

However there’s the asymmetry of power and voice - where folks can use
repetition and cognitive easing around lies and just repeat, repeat, repeat
and drown out the voice of others who lack the same access to digital
megaphones.

Remember courts ask people to tell the truth, whole truth, and nothing but
the truth. What manipulators of the inauthentic do is usually something
where 2 of the 3 “truth asks” are done and the 3 is stretched. You might
get the truth but not the whole truth - or the truth with
disinformation/inauthenticness inserted too.

On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 20:12 David Lang <david at lang.hm> wrote:

> that's where the reputation comes into play, if they are willing to burn a
> trusted reputation to lie, you can't stop them, but trusted reputations
> take
> time to build, so are not free.
>
> this will take time for people to learn, so it's not a short-term win
> (short
> term, I expect that there will be telltales that will show up through
> analysis,
> although it make take inspection of the camera that supposedly took the
> picture
> to find them all), but there is a need for trust, anonymity, and
> independence
> from a centralized authority (needed for anonymity)
>
> the novel Earthweb ( https://www.baen.com/earthweb-second-edition.html
> https://www.amazon.com/Earthweb-Second-Mark-Stiegler-ebook/dp/B079BKBHJ2/
> )
> shows how such a reputation based system could work (for both legal and
> illegal
> activities)
>
> How do 'darkweb' type folks establish trust and avoid being burned? they
> have to
> have some sort of reputation based system (even if informal)
>
> David Lang
>
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2024, David Bray, PhD wrote:
>
> > Yes - however folks who do bad things rarely sign that they did bad
> > things... so how do we tackle bad actors?
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 9:30 PM David Lang <david at lang.hm> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 8 Jan 2024, David Bray, PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>> Also signatures and the like only work for things where you actively
> >>> attest.
> >>>
> >>> What if it's a supposed photo, video, or other claims that a person did
> >> (or
> >>> did not do) something. Sadly we know eyewitness testimony actually is
> >>> replete with errors... which is why heretofore "roll the video tape"
> >>> (you're at least a Gen X'er or older if you recall video tapes) has
> been
> >>> what courts relied upon:
> >>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
> >>>
> >>> What do we do if that's now questioned? Watermarking of photos, audio,
> >> and
> >>> videos can be overcome - and, sadly, may actually super-empower either
> >>> surveillance states or authoritarian states to "control" media. So free
> >> and
> >>> pluralistic societies will be especially challenged here?
> >>
> >> signing the images and then the reputation of the person doing the
> signing.
> >>
> >> now, this doesn't solve the court problem, but there I would say there
> >> needs to
> >> be multiple sources in any case.
> >>
> >> David Lang
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 5:08 PM David Lang via Nnagain <
> >>> nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> signatures work, but how do you know what signatures to trust? the
> >> current
> >>>> approach of 'trust signatures where they have paid one of a few
> >> companies'
> >>>> is
> >>>> not going to work. There will need to be some sort of decentralized
> >>>> reputation
> >>>> system where you can pick who you trust
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, some people will chose to trust people who feed them fakes. That
> is
> >>>> better
> >>>> than giving any one entity the ability to declare anything as "true,
> >> don't
> >>>> you
> >>>> dare question it" (as we have seen over the last few years)
> >>>>
> >>>> David Lang
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, 8 Jan 2024, Dave Taht via Nnagain wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 15:17:12 -0500
> >>>>> From: Dave Taht via Nnagain <nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net>
> >>>>> To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects
> heard
> >>>> this
> >>>>>     time! <nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net>
> >>>>> Cc: Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com>
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NNagain] The growing challenges of discerning authentic
> >> vs.
> >>>>>     inauthentic information and identity
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Basically I am interested in the intersection between politics and
> the
> >>>>> internet in the context of this list, which is broader than the NN
> >>>>> issue. So I appreciate monday conversation starters like these.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In my case, I often have to revert to thinking about the present in
> >>>>> terms of what used to be science fiction. "Interface" - upon
> >>>>> cogitating about what the coming election will look like came to mind
> >>>>> -  https://www.amazon.com/Interface-Stephen-Bury/dp/0553572407
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When I first saw the deepfakes Pr0n phenomenon a few years ago, I had
> >>>>> my oh-ghu moment, as I realized once tools like that got into
> >>>>> everyone's hands the truth and authenticity of any form of media
> begin
> >>>>> to vanish, and the recent rise of the LLMs *almost* put the finish to
> >>>>> it. Thankfully the LLMs (so far) have a terrible tendency to
> >>>>> hallucinate which is often easily detectable, and overall, the
> >>>>> technoliterati have managed to expel really bad ideas like
> >>>>> crypto-grift, web3, and so on in the last few years. Web3 investment
> >>>>> is down 70% this year...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I now wish very much that the concept of "whuffie" existed in the
> real
> >>>>> world, but the flight to mastodon, twitter's addition of community
> >>>>> notes, most of newspapers moving to a for-pay model, and in general,
> >>>>> the innoculation of the populace at large to distrust everything they
> >>>>> learn on line is well underway which I find some comfort in.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Promoting widespread skepticism and disbelief are powerful tools, but
> >>>>> trying to find guidelines to what is actually truthful harder. For
> >>>>> example, I read wikipedia's talk page on everything controversial.
> Too
> >>>>> few do that. I recently sat through fox news with my mom, because her
> >>>>> blood pressure was too low, and it served well to "improve" that, and
> >>>>> me, take a lisinopril.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Life's just a ride, tho, you know?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_and_Out_in_the_Magic_Kingdom
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 9:32 AM David Bray, PhD via Nnagain
> >>>>> <nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dear NNAgain’ers,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Today on a different listserv, I joined a discussion on what I sense
> >>>> will be a pressing issue across multiple sectors in 2024. I recognize
> >> this
> >>>> is not NN-related and so if it isn’t of interest, I apologize in
> >> advance.
> >>>> However as most of us have technology background here, my sense is we
> >>>> generally have a better sense of the looming issue than non-technical
> >> folks
> >>>> at the moment. Below I outline some of the contours of the evolving
> >> problem
> >>>> space, and invite each of you to share your thoughts as I sense the
> >>>> diversity of perspectives here might help with brainstorming potential
> >>>> solutions necessary for civil societies to continue:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Premise: We are at the precipice of an extended era where
> >>>> inauthenticity vs. authenticity will be difficult to discern, that
> that
> >>>> involves multiple forms of content including biometrics and more.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In isolated pockets, governments are becoming aware of this -
> however
> >>>> it’s going to be really difficult for pluralistic societies like the
> >> U.S.
> >>>> where any of the Estates that traditionally would have a role to play
> in
> >>>> verifying the authentic vs. inauthentic nature of something have had
> >> public
> >>>> trust in them as arbiters eroding. And it doesn’t help that both
> >> politics
> >>>> and advertisement rely on presenting things as 100% authentic when
> >> they’re
> >>>> often only somewhat so (or, to be more generous, mix facts with lots
> of
> >>>> beliefs).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not supporting autocracies, however they have a bit of a “home
> field”
> >>>> advantage here because there is only one singular narrative - and
> anyone
> >>>> who questions it can be fired/isolated, imprisoned/disappeared, or
> >>>> killed/executed. Tools of such regimes, to include filtering,
> >> censorship,
> >>>> and repression - will be used to ensure only one narrative (authentic
> or
> >>>> not, mostly likely the latter) is seen by a majority of their
> >> population.
> >>>> Pluralistic societies will have it much harder, and the last ten years
> >> will
> >>>> pale in comparison to the challenges of sensemaking in a world flooded
> >> by
> >>>> both media and mediums of questionable authenticity.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Back in 2019-2020, I did my darnest to connect Pablo and an
> additional
> >>>> People-Centered Internet expert with Salesforce that has a lot of CRM
> >> data
> >>>> with the proposal that SF could provide a feature where, as part of
> the
> >>>> CRM, “out of band” questions could be included to do some sort of
> >>>> additional level of trust that the entity on the other end was who
> they
> >>>> claimed to be. Unfortunately that pitch was overshadowed by larger
> >> concerns
> >>>> that SF’s software, give some of its features, could be misused in
> ways
> >> not
> >>>> intended by them (think about ways akin to Cambridge Analytica) and
> they
> >>>> were trying to figure out how they could incorporate features to
> prevent
> >>>> actors from misusing/abusing their software in ways not intended by
> >> them as
> >>>> a company.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2024 is going to be hard. Manipulation of what people appear to see,
> >>>> hear, sense - and thus know - is becoming sadly easier.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Meanwhile understanding of the importance of triangulation,
> >>>> triangulation, triangulation from different perspective to discern
> >>>> authenticity vs. inauthenticity remains time-consuming and hard.
> >> Perhaps we
> >>>> need to consider standing up private sector Dun & Bradstreet-like
> >> entities
> >>>> for identity and other important adjudicatory functions - however that
> >>>> doesn’t immediately solve the issue of how to help the public in a
> would
> >>>> experiencing a flood of questionable content, information, and
> >> identities?
> >>>> And who “watches” the adjudicators?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> David Bray, PhD Principal, LeadDoAdapt Ventures, Inc.
> >>>>>> Loomis Innovation Council Co-Chair & Distinguished Fellow
> >>>>>> Henry S. Stimson Center, Business Executives for National Security
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> Nnagain mailing list
> >>>>>> Nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> 40 years of net history, a couple songs:
> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9RGX6QFm5E
> >>>>> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Nnagain mailing list
> >>>>> Nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Nnagain mailing list
> >>>> Nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/nnagain/attachments/20240109/4b1f0236/attachment-0001.html>