One side-conversation that has been going on in my life is the dynamic between "curated content" and "free-flow content".
I strongly lean toward "free-flow" and believe that each individual is responsible for sorting wheat-from-chaff. Further, I believe that a solid grounding in a religious tradition simplifies that sorting. We are not all gifted with the same mental processing capability and tradition is the original "crowd-sourcing". Even those of us who are proud of our "smart" are well advised to examine how our choices square with our religious self.
The "curated content" folks cough up a hair-ball at the potential chaos of the free-flow model. Chaos makes them uncomfortable.
At the risk of seeming to be calloused, chaos and risk are eternal. Even though we might crave some benevolent, omniscient being/organization to serve as curator, none exists. Or, even if it existed for an instant in time, the power of such a position would inevitably corrupt it.
Consider recent reports that internal, Democratic polls revealed that Harris NEVER led Trump during the campaign. And if internal polls indicated that, then external polls (which tend to have larger samples) probably indicated the same thing after adjusting for known sampling biases. And yet the mainstream media (the gold-standard for the curated-content advocates) universally presented the most favorably cooked polling data for the party-in-power. That is hardly the "speaking-truth-to-power" that the media trumpets.
Organizations that are supposedly self-policing have a mediocre-to-dismal record. They tend to evolve into organizations that close-ranks and protect "their own". Cops. Doctors. Academics. Government. No shortage of examples.
Nothing really changes. The first documented reference to "Caveat Emptor" dates back to 1603. I suspect its true origins were much earlier than that. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who shall watch the watchmen?) dates back to the first century and is attributed to Juvenal but it was likely an ancient aphorism even then.
Confirmation Bias.
ReplyDeletePorque no los dos?
ReplyDeleteThe two systems end up being antagonistic.
DeleteThe "curators" or gatekeepers figure out how to put a meter on what they let pass through. Since they benefit from the system they have incentives to stomp-out free-flow. Witness the current back-and-forth between Rogan and Joy Behar; just one example.
I don't find that a compelling argument against having both. "Curated" content as you label it can do its own thing and Rogan can do his thing. There's plenty of inaccurate reporting that comes out of JRE. If your point is that people should have the tools to discern what to trust on their own, then that's compatible with 'curated' content already, because even if they get it wrong, the person should be able to discern it themselves. "Curated" content isn't a substitute for dilligant consumers, it's an added measure.
DeleteQuis custodiet.... my thoughts exactly, where are the outsiders with insight over those kinds of bodies? We have seen, our side of the pond, that supposedly independent watchdogs rapidly get captured and turned into apologists in areas like drug regulation, standards for members of parliament etc.
ReplyDeleteActs 17:11
DeleteThese were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
John 16:12-15
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. [13] Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. [14] He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. [15] All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
1 Corinthians 2:12-16
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. [13] Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. [15] But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. [16] For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
Romans 1:21-25
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. [22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, [23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. [24] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: [25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
It is innate to human nature. Half the country is fighting against big brother, half the country is fighting to implement big brother. Communism vs. Capitalism, same vein.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the media I am not sure I agree.
ReplyDeleteI think they are true believers and could not possibly think that Harris could lose. If you watch any of the melt down videos, they start full of positive energy before the first votes are counted that Harris will win handily. Slowly it dawns on them they are going to lose one, then three and finally all the toss up states.
When the fat lady finally walks off stage, they just unleashed on sex and race traitors. How could any woman not want abortions on demand? How could any Hispanic person not want open borders? How dare any black man have an opinion not expressed by Obama or Harris? In their minds trans rights are more important than inflation.
Will they change? IMHO no way. Getting out and talking to fascists and racists would make them unclean.
With regard to your observation on self policing organizations, Jerry Pournelle quantified the phenomenon of what I call "organizational capture" as the 'Iron Law of Bureaucracy' which reads as follows:
ReplyDeleteH/T- https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html
"Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people:
First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.
Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.
The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization."
One effective way to deal with this sort of institutionalized corruption is to change the requirements for organizational survival.
Thanks for reminding me of of Pournelle's Law of Bureaucracy. I was a regular reader of his columns in Byte magazine, and really enjoyed his down-to-earth realism on many topics, not just the evolving world of personal computing.
Delete