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

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).

> 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.

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

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

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.

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.