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

[David Bray, PhD]

Also on history let’s consider the 1890’s and how both Pulitzer 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’re seeing a Second Gilded Age?


On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 13:00 Jack Haverty via Nnagain <
nnagain at 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 the
> 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 rating
> 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 is
> "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 was
> 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, 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 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 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/20240109/5c706ad8/attachment.html>