Forum Moderators: open
The British developer of the world wide web says he is worried about the way it could be used to spread misinformation and "undemocratic forces". The web has transformed the way many people work, play and do business.But Sir Tim Berners-Lee told BBC News he feared that, if the way the internet is used is left to develop unchecked, "bad things" could happen.
He wants to set up a web science research project to study the social implications of the web's development.
Web Inventor Fears For The Future [news.bbc.co.uk]
I think the web is already being used for misinformation. As social networking expands into new areas and grows over International borders the opportunities for misinformation in a wider field abound.
Trust is going to become a bigger issue in social networking.
As for TV you are refered to sit there and watch the errors and comment on them after the broadcast (if anyone cares about the errors or misinformation for that matter).
Sometimes I don't think people (especially so called experts) get it. Internet is not a flawless medium, but the power of the Internet is that everyone's voice matter, which is rare in other media.
How is the internet any different than any other medium for the last 5000 years in spreading misinformation?
How is the internet any different than any other medium for the last 5000 years in spreading misinformation?
By virtue of the fact that it is essentially unregulated and hence easy to use for criminal activity. It has proved that there are a vast number of people with no scruples out there who are all quite happy to break the law or otherwise offend when they know that they cannot get caught.
It's a sad reflection on the human race and this is no doubt what is concerning Sir Tim.
What scares the authorities about the web is that you don't necessarily have to be rich or in a position of power in order to commit crimes and spread misinformation.
I know there are plenty of dodgy websites out there (so I've heard!) but they're also the ones which get all the media attention. That is a sad reflection on the media, not the human race.
There is plenty of 'Mainstream' media which is also influenced/run by people with questionable morals.
Yes, but it is regulated and accountable. It's the lack of accountability that makes the web such a dangerous place.
It's the lack of accountability that makes the web such a dangerous place.
Really, the web has just put the power of misinformation in the hands of the little people. Accountablity in other medias really means just pleasing the companies/governments that run and control them.
Colbert is probably closest when he says that we have a wikiality, a truth by general concensus. It has always been a truth as someone sees it, now the internet is truth as most of the population seem to see it.
Is this mass application of the ability to inform & misinform dangerous? Probably no more than it was before when some newspaper owner had the same power all to himself.
Yes, but it is regulated and accountable
I see that you live in a "free" country. This is not a universal truth, even in free societies.
Thus, the concern for website such as the Drudge Report, which sometimes breaks some actual news or has a worthwhile insight but mostly repeats gossip is a concern.
Case in point, why would the person who came up with the idea of the web be someone who would have any insights on its economic, social or political impact, for better or for worse?
One can call it postrealism: make your own reality online.<url=http://www.postrealism.com>Postrealism</url>
One can call it postrealism
Inaccurate and manipulative information.. you're calling that postrealism? In a sense maybe.. if this is what we've become. I prefer to call it Inaccurate and manipulative information.
If the shoe fits eh?
By virtue of the fact that it is essentially unregulated and hence easy to use for criminal activity..
You mean just like the patent medicines of the 1800's?
Or the BBS systems of the 1970's and 80's?
Or the "underground" book sellers/publishers of the 60's?
The internet is a medium of information exchange, just like Papyrus was 5000 years ago. The fact that the "information" might be wrong or bad is not a reflection of the medium.
Besides, it would be totally impossible to regulate or censor the net at this point. Even Communist China, with something like 75,000 internet censors on the job is totally overwhelmed.
The only country that I know of that has succeeded in controlling the internet is North Korea.
Oh.. wait.. they don't have phone lines....
While it is true that it is now much easier to passout bogus info, it is also much easier to check it out for facts. But some people never will - just like some people refuse to change their mind on UFO's.
[edited by: Wlauzon at 9:58 pm (utc) on Nov. 4, 2006]
Besides, it would be totally impossible to regulate or censor the net at this point. Even Communist China, with something like 75,000 internet censors on the job is totally overwhelmed.
Oh well! Let's just them be then.
Officials from China, Iran and other nations notorious for censoring websites and persecuting bloggers heard speakers at the inaugural Internet Governance Forum denounce restrictions on freedom of expression online. The IT corporations Google, Microsoft and Cisco Systems were made to defend their businesses in China. **** Microsoft admitted that it might have to consider quitting the country. ****
In fact, doing a search for china internet censorship turns up a lot of interesting information about how well the effort, even with the "Great Firewall" is NOT working. It apparently leaks like a sieve.
[edited by: Wlauzon at 8:01 am (utc) on Nov. 5, 2006]
1.) Should regulations be made (ie., should individuals be made identifyable and responsible for the information they contribute)
No need for regulations.
Web publishers can put together professional codes of conduct themselves - numerous examples of such exist already - and then individual webmasters can choose to subscribe to the code of conduct or not. If an individual webmaster subscribes - and can be seen to be doing so - that webmaster may increase their recognition. Those who do not, miss out on the brownie points.
One step beyond this - and arguably even this isn't necessary - might be to introduce certification organisations who assess and provide accreditation for web-based information providers who exceed - and continue to exceed - certain standards of quality, objective information provision and analysis.
But all of this can be voluntary - those who are not making the effort will be immediately identifiable and easily dismissed as less reliable sources of information.
In a recent interview with the Guardian, alas, my attempt to explain this [Blogs provide an evolving network of interest and trust] was turned upside down into a "blogging is one of the biggest perils" message. Sigh. I think they took their lead from an unfortunate BBC article, which for some reason stressed concerns about the web rather than excitement, failure modes rather than opportunities......And, fortunately, we have blogs. We can publish what we actually think, even when misreported.
(My emphasis). It is, perhaps, understandable that the BBC institutionally views the de-centralised media model as more of a threat than an opportunity, and inadvertently emphasised the negative aspects in its report.
Wow, and this post is dated Nov 2, 2006.....if it was dated Nov 2, 1996 we might have something to discuss (back then).....but, we are all a dollar short and tens years too late now!
...which for some reason stressed concerns about the web rather than excitement, failure modes rather than opportunities...
I cannot believe that any news or media organization would do that, about any subject.... :/
But all of this can be voluntary - those who are not making the effort will be immediately identifiable and easily dismissed as less reliable sources of information.
Do you really think these guys care about this? We are talking about illegal activity here.
What a moron; if cited correctly, that is.
If life in general is left to develop unchecked bad things could happen.
Well, exactly - and in real life, individuals ARE checked and made responsible for their action by legal and social constraints.
What a moron
Well ... here we have someone who thinks Tim Berners Lee is a moron?
Moron Definition:
1. A stupid person; a dolt.
2. Psychology. A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
Where would you place Tim Berners-Lee in the above definitions? Isn't it amazing that anyone who makes a living from the Internet can call its creator a "moron"?
If life in general is left to develop unchecked bad things could happen.
The Internet was left to develop unchecked and really bad things happened and continue to happen. Fifteen years ago if you had forecast some of the evil stuff that is going on now no one would have believed you. All of this is down to lack of accountability and it will get worse because evil people feed on lack of accountability.
Berners-Lee recognises this, "moron" or not.
Luckily the press today is very restrained otherwise bad things could happen. <-- That's sarcasm, it's not my opinion. Except for the fact that the press at large is pretty restrained on certain issues these days, but one could hardly call that "opinion".
----
The man may have invented the internet, but that was truly a moronic viewpoint nevertheless. Moronic, ignorant, paranoid, and just plain stupid.
Moronic, ignorant, paranoid, and just plain stupid.
Well I'm with Sir Tim. I suppose that makes me a stupid, paranoid moron, eh?
But even though you're not morons any of you, in this particular case you both may hold moronic viewpoints - "may" because I'm not sure if TBL is quoted correctly by the press.
The single largest danger today lies in that very widespread tendency to want to control anyone and anything.
But that is my opinion, and as much as I disagree strongly with yours I really appreciate that you have an opinion, and you have every right to have it however much it may differ from mine. That does not make you bad or moronic, not even if I may feel that your opinion on this particular issue is.
may your god (..if you believe in such a thing ;-) bless tiny Tim ..
but here Tim may just be looking in the wrong direction ..smoke and mirrors can get in the eyes of the best of us m'lord ..beware of maya ..:))
edited ..spelling and smileys ;-)
[edited by: Leosghost at 11:01 pm (utc) on Nov. 7, 2006]
