I’m thinking about this facebook
hullaballoo and how just a certain amount of information can, in theory,
influence important matters.
Now the logician in me knows all
about the fallacy ad populum or “if a million people jump off a bridge, are
you?” Consider:
1We
can now hear the voices of a million people, easily. It’s called the internet.
2.Size
matters. From your quarter-pounder down to the number of Russian bots on Facebook and Twitter posting this and that to get you thinking one way or
another.
Buyer beware you might say. Don’t
believe anything you see on Facebook or Twitter you might say.
That is an option certainly but
psychologist know about something called internal bias or “birds of a feather
flock together” and so do the designers of the bots and their messaging and they know how to sneak “what you want to hear” in front of you.
And you my friend are as
susceptible to internal bias as everyone else.
It gets worse.
But what will we do when technology
can truly mask the giver of the information or simulate the authenticity of the
giver of the information?
Here is what I mean:
Let us say your trusted news source is the NY times. What are you going to do
when the bots simulate the NY times with the accuracy of a counterfeiter of
money or art?
What if the trusted telly you watch
can be counterfeited?
Don’t poopoo this idea. Technology
will certainly allow for this. Certainly. Without a doubt.
So why did I lead off with the
Sneakers query?
The plot of Sneakers revolves
around a program (a box in the movie) that is capable of breaking the encryption of
nearly every computer system.
Currently we are substituting encryption
for biased messaging (based on data collected about you) and the amount of
messaging. When you hear information that already agrees with your worldview,
even if that information is factually incorrect (in the age of alternative
facts) you act and behave a certain way. And vote a certain way.
Two scenes from the movie are
important and prescient:
