

'Snowden' Propaganda Reporter Admits He's Just Writing What UK Gov't Told Him - maaaats
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150615/11565531344/reporter-who-wrote-sunday-times-snowden-propaganda-admits-that-hes-just-writing-what-uk-govt-told-him.shtml

======
kordless
Over the last few years I've been asking individuals from different countries
about how they establish trust within their cultures. Some cultures trust
quickly, some dis-trust quickly, some establish trust over time based on
observations, some establish trust over time through speculation. Some never
trust, unless they know you or someone you know. Some seem trustworthy to
others they know, and very untrustworthy to those they don't.

I'm an American, so it seems fair I stick to what I know and let people from
other cultures chime in here, instead of me speaking for them. Americans tend
to (apparently) trust very quickly. We'll smile at you, nod a lot, and talk to
you openly about just about anything within minutes of meeting you. We may
remain suspicious of you however, especially if you may be sticking around for
a while. We'll make intense observations, even at the expense of appearing
nosey, in an attempt to justify our initial trust in you. If we observe
'suspicious' actions, we may attempt to investigate further by talking about
you with others we do trust. We're not opposed to speaking for your actions,
or simply making up a bunch of facts to suit our fears in our mistrust in you,
especially if we've discussed you previously with others (which bolsters the
fear). When clear violations of trust have occurred we'll demand someone
suffer for these violations, even at the expense of removing our own freedom
to act later. In short, we hack trust more than most cultures on the planet,
which is probably also why we're so damn good at marketing.

I'm thinking we should start working on methods which improve trust
instantiation with each other based on the impact the conversation can have on
others. In general, most culture's methods of establishing trust sacrifice
efficiency. That's fine if you are just grabbing drinks with someone, but if
you are reporting to a large number of people, you should be held accountable
for your bullshit.

No clue how to implement this, but I suspect it's blockchain related. Been
meaning to write more about it, given I had more time to write. :)

~~~
joshstrange
Trust is a very interesting problem to solve. I say that I would really like
the ability to "bond" together various filtered news sources and ideally have
the ability group stories by topic ("all snowden coverage", "all TPP
coverage", etc). I know you can half-accomplish this with RSS feeds but right
now the amount of work required to maintain that list would be quite an
undertaking. Also a lot of the time I want to "trust" certain sub-blogs or
specific authors instead of the entire site and that's not always easy to do.
Then there are times I want to be able to compare what I'd consider non-
trustworthy sources to what I'm reading. It's a hard problem and I have no
clue how to solve it but if you make any progress make sure to Show HN!

~~~
kordless
Yeah, I'm pretty sure 'god' is just a ring zero awareness of all computing
processes. What you are discussing would be the initial 'god' version 1.0.
Consensus across race, culture and social standing. Stuff _that_ into the
blockchain!

------
mikevp
Там нет правда в Известиях, и нет Известия в Правде

