
Say goodbye to the information age: it’s all about reputation now - helloworld
https://aeon.co/ideas/say-goodbye-to-the-information-age-its-all-about-reputation-now
======
ared38
> 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).

~~~
eldavido
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
> 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.

~~~
gt_
I come across reverence for these publications regularly but I don’t say
anything because I fear bipartisan reactionism would label me a conspiracist
before I have a chance to defend myself.

I actually get most of my news filtered through HN comments and from
independent podcasts by journalists I trust.

~~~
randcraw
I treat news like it was an claim about nature by a scientist. Do other
(independent) experts agree? If not, then I'm not ready to accept the claim
yet. But if so, and the argument seems sound, then I'll tentatively consider
believing it.

Or if opinions on the proposed news/idea are mixed or absent, I'll look at how
bold the claim is and how disruptive the consequences of accepting it. Bold
claims must offer more compelling support (or more undeniable) than mild
claims, be that support evidentiary or logical.

Without sound support, at most I'll consider a claim to be plausible and
perhaps intriguing. But it's not really trustworthy yet as news, and certainly
not as science.

~~~
Erlangolem
I love this outlook, and I share it. I’d add that I like to take patterns of
claims into account, past and present. Patterns of claims can be illuminating
as to the reality of underlying motivations, even where claims are true.
Sometimes claims are accurate, but by presenting only one segment of a story
the reader’s conclusions are moulded a specific end. For example claims that
video games cause violence recur in predictable ways, as do PR submarines.

Another useful filter is to identify which of Logos, Pathos, or Ethos is being
employed most. Is an article trying to support its claims with citations,
original research, and sound logic? Or is it just calling everyone who
disagrees with it immoral?

------
sp332
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.

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

~~~
sp332
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...](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+15&version=HCSB)
In other words, there's no point gambling with your eternal soul. Better make
sure you know the truth!

------
Ancalagon
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.

------
alphamonster
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.

------
jancsika
> 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

------
CharlesW
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whuffie)

------
BLKNSLVR
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.

------
tcbawo
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.

------
chapill
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.

~~~
dane-pgp
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
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.

~~~
soared
These discussions devolve quickly when you use the word "they" as if
scientists, politicians, etc are all one big group of people. The same thing
occurs when people talk about big tech, big business, politicians,
advertisers, homeless people, etc.

My point is that there is no "they" so assigning behavior makes to "them"
makes it impossible to counter-argue. You say they did it, but you can't even
define they, so how would I prove they didn't do that?

(Which is related to the article - "they" doesn't have a reputation, except
for the negative one you just insinuated on the spot)

