<div dir="auto">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! </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The Congress was also slightly more polarized at the time than it is now. What if we’re seeing a Second Gilded Age? <br clear="all"><br clear="all"><div dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"></div></div></div></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 13:00 Jack Haverty via Nnagain <<a href="mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net">nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><u></u>
<div>
IMHO, similar issues of judgement and trust have come up in the
past, and it might be worth researching the history.<br>
<br>
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".<br>
<br>
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 <a href="https://www.w3.org/" target="_blank">https://www.w3.org/</a> ). Thw W3C group,
led by Tim Berners-Lee, was intensely involved in setting technical
standards for the Web. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
See <a href="https://www.w3.org/PICS/" target="_blank">https://www.w3.org/PICS/</a> for the history. PICS is now obsolete
and was replaced by something called POWDER - see
<a href="https://www.w3.org/2007/powder/" target="_blank">https://www.w3.org/2007/powder/</a><br>
<br>
I wasn't involved in POWDER, which occurred after my involvement
with W3C ended. But I was very involved in the creation of PICS.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Even if PICS/POWDER isn't appropriate for handling misinformation,
an analysis of why it failed to be used might be revealing.</div><div><br>
<br>
Jack Haverty<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Nnagain mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net" target="_blank">Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>