Say goodbye to the information age: it’s all about reputation now

https://aeon.co/ideas/say-goodbye-to-the-information-age-its-all-about-reputation-now

by helloworld • 8 years ago

83 34 8 years ago

CharlesW• 8 years ago

This seems like a Hot Take from 2003[1], when the media first caught on that reputation matters on the internet just as it does in most contexts.

It was important way before then, too. Google was arguably successful because they figured out a way to base SERPs in part on reputation. And I know that reputation certainly mattered on the BBSs I used to frequent.

Ironically I have no idea whether Gloria Origgi has a good reputation as an authority on the topic, but this excerpt/ad makes the book seem like a lightweight, new-to-the-internet-thinking-party treatment.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whuffie

chapill2• 8 years ago

I've noticed this problem, but I wouldn't call it a reputation age as much as I would call it an opinion age. People form strong opinions about which they've done no personal study based on the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy.

Take author's moon landing example. If you really care, there are mirrors on the moon. If you want to know we've been there or not, you can devise an experiment, fire a laser at those mirrors, and get a reflected beam back.

People now call things like "climate change" a science (and it's settled!), without doing the fundamental thing science requires: An experiment with a control group. Climate models are statistical correlation, not an experiment with a control group. It is not proof of causality.

tzakrajs• 8 years ago

It was always people's opinions but the author is arguing that people's opinions used to based more off of information closest to the matter at hand, but now people's opinions are based more off of reputation of the one claiming the opinion.

y4mi• 8 years ago

'science' is not defined as 'experimenting with control groups'.

dane-pgp2• 8 years ago

If the models have parameters which are tuned purely based on data available up until a certain point in time, and can predict outcomes based on data that is observed after that point in time, then those models can be said to be good predictors.

For example, if a model is trained to calculate the average Earth surface temperature based on recorded CO2 levels up to the year 2000, and then it correctly predicts the average surface temperature of all subsequent years, with just the CO2 levels as input, that would be a very helpful model for deciding what would be a safe level of CO2 to have in the atmosphere if we want the Earth's temperature to have less than some particular amount of warming.

wccrawford• 8 years ago

Except that it doesn't work for them. They have continually changed their models to predict the current behavior. They even started calling it "climate change" instead of "global warming" because of that.

To be clear: I'm not saying it isn't happening. (It is.) I'm not saying it's not caused by humans. (I think it probably is.) I'm saying that they have been terrible at proving anything. Everything from modifying the data and then deleting the original data to creating models that fail to predict the future.

chapill2• 8 years ago

If the models

If? I believe you just told me that you didn't build the model yourself. You're validating my statements from your first word. This is my point. It's the information equivalent of hearsay.

eldavido5• 8 years ago

I see it a little differently. I think the world has just gotten too big to comprehend.

In a small town, you could conceivably have firsthand knowledge of every restaurant and person you see each day. As we trade and communicate over longer and longer distances, we rely more on the opinions of things like Zagat/Yelp, intermediaries like booking/expedia, etc. These intermediaries are becoming extremely powerful as growing numbers rely on them, and all business is transacted globally.

In "the olden days", perhaps you could be just good at a craft. Now it feels like every single person has to play this elaborate reputational game, down to the level of individual careers, etc. I think it's always been like this in the law profession but it's spreading to everything as more of what we do is traded.

Blog post on this topic: https://blog.shortbar.com/the-end-of-the-country-developer-7...

mch82• 8 years ago

Science might not have a perfect understanding of Earth’s climate, but that really isn’t the point. The point is we can detect when humans are behaving in ways that make Earth less hospitable for humans and we can then choose to behave differently. Air quality in Los Angeles is one practical example. We’re not perfect, but we also stopped aggressively poisoning ourselves.

https://www.kcet.org/history-society/how-los-angeles-began-t...

sp3322• 8 years ago

Critical thinking skills have never gone out of style. Where does it come from? Does the source have a good reputation? Who are the authorities who believe it? What are my reasons for deferring to these authorities? I was taught these questions in Sunday school decades ago.

eldavido5• 8 years ago

I agree that this is a foundational "liberal arts" skill, nevertheless, it's one many are never taught.

If you look at the last electoral cycle, I think we had the most democratic (not Democratic) election in US history. The candidates went around the traditional party/media gatekeepers, "disintermediating" them by building "direct to consumer" brands on Twitter and other media platforms.

I don't think the US electorate was used to having so much choice. In the past, we got what the party gave us, which tended to be more centrist. All bets were off this time. All to say, I think you overestimate how critical the electorate at large is, it's just that it never mattered, until now.

slumberlust• 8 years ago

The Sunday school portion caught me off guard. Aren't these types of questions the enemy of religion and conformity?

sp3322• 8 years ago

That depends if your Sunday school is about religion and conformity, or a personal belief and relationship with God. As the apostle Paul said, "If we have put our hope in Christ for this life only, we should be pitied more than anyone." https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians... In other words, there's no point gambling with your eternal soul. Better make sure you know the truth!

alphamonster• 8 years ago

I generally agree, but I think the article goes a bit far:

Such questions will help us to get a better grip on reality than trying to check directly the reliability of the information at issue. In a hyper-specialised system of the production of knowledge, it makes no sense to try to investigate on our own, for example, the possible correlation between vaccines and autism

There is middle ground between trusting a source because of its `reputation' and conducting trials yourself. Relying too much on reputation is also known as the "appeal to authority" fallacy.

ared38• 8 years ago

the ‘reputation age’, in which information will have value only if it is already filtered, evaluated and commented upon by others

Isn't this just a return to form? This sounds like what newspapers, publishers, academics, etc have been doing for hundreds of years. Even 'fake news' is nothing new; there have always been disreputable publishers willing to endorse wild conspiracies.

The novel thing is that the filtering and evaluation has become decentralized. The article implores us to ask "Who are the authorities who believe it? What are my reasons for deferring to these authorities?", but increasingly we depend on our friends and likeminded crowds to approve information through sharing rather than engaging with an authority by subscribing to a newspaper or feed.

Since the most exaggerated interpretations of a situation are almost inevitably the most shared, just checking the reputation of the source isn't enough. Consider the amount of mainstream media coverage on the "golden shower" aspect of the Trump dossier, when it was the least supported accusation. Or how Cuddy's provocative speech on body language went viral, despite other reputable researchers casting doubt. The structure of social media rewards stripping out context and nuance.

So instead of questioning authority figures, question your tribe. Does it sound too good to be true? Did you learn something new, or just confirm existing beliefs? Have you taken the time to see how the other tribe thinks about this issue? You can only escape your filter bubble if you make a conscious effort to do so (I'm still trying).

ShabbosGoy• 8 years ago

I think what complicates matters is how our brains are collectively being conditioned by what I like to call “dopamine engineering”. If your brain is primed for information that produces a pleasurable response, it’s extremely difficult to think critically about that information. Couple that with filter bubbles and you have a docile population that’s easy to control.

gt_2• 8 years ago

I wish this view didn’t have a reputation of being conspiracy, because if the perch of criticality can be achieved, this process is very accessible and observable. Media theory can be very nuanced but the general ideas are daily routine for any American, but we lack daily awareness.

The awareness is very obviously hindered by capitalism. The market incentivizes misrepresentation.

nkkollaw• 8 years ago

I agree with what you're saying, but tribes are often extremely biased, and might want to see what they believe instead of the other way around.

In theory, newspapers (or other authority figures) should in theory report facts while staying impartial.

eldavido5• 8 years ago

I think this is all too true. I think a lot of what's going on in the world right now is explainable through the death of ubiquitous, reliably-sourced information.

Growing up in suburban Illinois, we had a local paper. It was nothing special but at least had a commitment (in theory) to report things accurately. In a world where most people get their news from social media, people are driven by their incentives/dopamine conditioning toward a lot of behaviors that promote neither truth, nor engagement with opposing views.

What I find interesting, and absent from the conversation, is the social class dimension of this. The rich have always paid for reliable information, whether through newspaper subscriptions, magazines, or other high-quality private newsletters, some of them absurdly expensive (hundreds/thousands of dollars/year). As I get older, I find myself much, much more discerning about what I read. I've completely stopped using facebook (5-6 years ago), but now read The Economist, The SF Chronicle, Stratechery, and a handful of blogs from authors I trust. I don't know for sure, but I suspect "willingness to pay for good information" is a pretty strong correlate of wealth worldwide. I just have no idea whether it's causal, or a side effect of having disposable income, or what.

zombieprocesses• 8 years ago

but now read The Economist, The SF Chronicle, Stratechery, and a handful of blogs from authors I trust. I

I'm the complete opposite. I've gone from being a subscriber to the economist, nytimes, npr, etc and accepting them as gospel to seeing them for agenda pushing institutions.

but I suspect "willingness to pay for good information" is a pretty strong correlate of wealth worldwide.

I think you are missing the point. The wealthy don't read the economist. The wealthy hire the people to write in the economist.

Ultimately, social media is ( or at least has been ) the "people's" propaganda. The economist/etc are the wealthy elite's propaganda. It looks like the elite want to take over social media and make it part of their message platform as well.

Nomentatus• 8 years ago

Certainly it's worth noting (as you do) how entertainified TV networks "news and magazine" shows have become, post-regulation; with a justifiable loss of reputation. This suggests that industry self-correction (as viewers realize they've often been duped or distracted rather than informed) has its limits.

Ancalagon• 8 years ago

So instead of the information age its now the "credibly-sourced information age"? Disinformation has been a problem forever (hello Salem witches). Applying a blanket "reputation" solution is dangerous, because ultimately no information source is infallible, and all information sources deserve your constant skepticism. This is true in science and every other source of information we are exposed to on a day-to-day basis.

tcbawo• 8 years ago

I worry about the ability to fabricate false evidence. To prove authenticity of facts, we may need to build a trail of evidence for non-repudiation. This dovetails somewhat with reputation. Being able to prove authenticity of a document, audio, or video clip as of a certain date (not generated after the fact) is one useful application (side effect?) of blockchain technology.

jancsika• 8 years ago

In the reputation age, our critical appraisals should be directed not at the content of information but rather at the social network of relations that has shaped that content and given it a certain deserved or undeserved ‘rank’ in our system of knowledge.

I don't agree.

For one thing, it's overkill for the vast majority of cases. With most conspiracy theorists we're talking about people who don't understand units of measure; use glaringly inappropriate unit of measure; don't understand significant digits; sometimes don't use any units at all; make multiple statements of fact that contradict each other; attempt to make implicit changes to constant values in the course of the discussion; and/or, most importantly, exponentially explode the bounds of the discussion to avoid ever saying, "I'm getting the feeling I don't know what I'm talking about."

I don't need much of a reputation to realize that their system of knowledge is of such low quality that I can either reject it out of hand or simply reserve judgment.

For another, suppose my mortal enemy sends me hacked email evidence of my fiancee rigging the courting process with all kinds of unethical behavior against another suitor. In fact, my fiancee siphoned fuel from the vehicle of that person, constantly tried to get their electricity turned off, and wheeled-and-dealed with my family to get them to approve of my fiancee and disapprove of the other suitor.

Suppose my family confirms the veracity of the hacked emails.

I would say the most significant problem I have is between my soon to be ex-fiancee and me. But if I understand the upshot of the article, the author is claiming the most significant problem is between my mortal enemy and me.

Worse, the leaders of the Democratic Party in the U.S. seem to agree with the author.

Edit: clarification

BLKNSLVR• 8 years ago

The only new thing the Internet has brought, in regards to information, is the ease at which any moron can find a platform.

That barrier to entry used to be very high. Now it's almost non-existent. That's the cause of the symptoms that a number of other commentators have mentioned, such as "the death of ubiquitous, reliably-sourced information".

The flipside to this is that it's also a threat to propaganda from those who had the resources to create their own platforms when that was actually an achievement.

Also, as other commentators have said, critical thinking was always important, it's just a bit more important now because, as above, every moron has a platform. Or, maybe, the more things change the more they stay the same.

Tangential relationship: Music used to be a rebellious form of expression. It has been forcefully moulded into another tool of conformity once the powers that be worked out how to profit from it and boil off everything but the hooks that attack human evolutionary weaknesses.

The powers that be have already used Social Media to asset some amount of influence on the US election. That's a big proof of concept.

Say goodbye to the information age: it’s all about reputation now

Related Stories