Fujitsu and Japanese Uni propose 'endorsement layer' to make internet trustable

They were fighting over who said what and twitter and were paralyzed to the point that they couldn't do anything about Roe V Wade.

On Bias:

Everyone has biases, that includes companies since they are composed of and controlled by people It's difficult to determine if a person or companies biases affected the information they provide with certainty. Further I'll state that since everyone has these biases it's basically a wash and pointless to discuss on an individual level.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Higher probability of being truthful is actually too low a low bar"

We can't set some minimum level of reliability that needs to be passed because we are ranking sources against each other not against an undefined value. Even figuring out what that value is seems extremely difficult. This reminds me of the corruption discussion a few weeks ago, people were comparing the US to nothing, just making statements like "There's alot of corruption".

Since we need to get information about what's going on around us we have to use one or more sources of information. Therefore if there is a contradiction between sources we use reputation. --------------------------------------------------------------------

"You should simply believe what I say due to my strong reputation on social networks"

I don't know your reputation nor has anyone else told me about you. However let's talk about why, in general, individuals on the internet are more likely to be less trust worthy than dedicated news outlets. This is assuming you are only using reputation and there's no other variables.

1. People on the internet can and normally do use a pseudonym. Having to create a new account with a new name isn't that painful if your reputation is destroyed for some reason. This is much more difficult for a business. Since the consequences of starting over are less for a person it increases the probability of they are lying because it reduces the effect of a punishment

2. An individuals primary function isn't the distribution of information nor are they funded by it. CNN is a news network, that's their main function. If people stop watching them they can go out of business whereas a person on the internet just continue living even if their reputation is ruined.

Since the stakes are so low for a person that increases the probability they'll lie (This is similar to 1)

3. Due to anonymity it would be difficult to sue individuals on the internet for defamation or to hold them accountable in. CNN is a company that is registered as a corporation.

It's difficult to enact punishments for a person on the internet vs companies and the less likely a punishment will occur or the less painful the punishment the higher the probability a person will commit the crime

"Despite the efforts of the nationalist textbook reformers, by the late 1990s the most common Japanese schoolbooks contained references to, for instance, the Nanjing Massacre, Unit 731, and the comfort women of World War II,[2] all historical issues which have faced challenges from ultranationalists in the past.[3] The most recent of the controversial textbooks, the New History Textbook, published in 2000, which significantly downplays Japanese aggression, was shunned by nearly all of Japan's school districts.[2]"

Seems like that's been cleaned up and they were omitting information, which is bad, but when I think of misinformation I think of lies.

EDIT: Just to be clear, your statement was "where school history textbooks, an authorative data source of sorts, have had a rather optimistic view " which implies it is widespread and happening now. My counter shows that not to be true.

So why did he wait 40 years then?