The Lemon Fool

I enjoyed this piece about an article in 1995 to that effect ...

https://thehustle.co/clifford-stoll-why ... will-fail/

Well some bits do seem to hit the mark, in particular:

"Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data. You don’t know what to ignore"

Gersemi wrote:"Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data. You don’t know what to ignore"

Quite the reverse! There's extensive peer-review on t'net, and misinformation is rarely so subtle as when written by professionals in the print (or broadcast) media. And an unprecedented range of ways to verify something. Though you have to be alert.

Just look at how Wikipedia gains grudging respect even from those who would assume it a wasteland - and comes out well in serious academic studies.

Down-the-pub[1] remains a place where stories true or false can spread, though even there the 'net now offers opportunities to verify something.

On the subject of t'net, some of us had a different view. Here's from what I wrote in 2006, reflecting what had motivated me to move the focus of my work to developing the net - including my first websites (both work and fun) and online software in 1995.

One of the tasks I’ve been through in recent weeks is to fill in the Front Matter for my [new] book. One page of that is for the Dedication.

Any book you pick up has one. And it’s always the same kind of thing: “to my dear wife and children”, bla bla bla. Really? Your nearest and dearest may be an inspiration to you, or a terror you wouldn’t dare not dedicate it to, but how many of them know, or want to know, the first thing about your subject?

After giving it a little thought, my nearest and dearest would just be embarrassed by such an obviously irrelevant gesture. So would I. But since the space needs filling, I’ve given it a very brief version of my dream, as set out at greater length in my manifesto:

To all who share my dream, and are working to help make it happen ….

…. the dream of a world where your work, your colleagues, and your opportunities in life are not dictated by where you live, or how far you commute. Where the old-fashioned office of the 19th and 20th centuries has passed into history, along with its soul-destroying bums-on-seats culture and Dilbertian work practices. A world inclusive of those who cannot work in a standard office. A world inclusive of those who reject car-dependence, but embrace a full and active life. A world inclusive of those who seek to fit study and learning in to a busy life, yet have no accessible library, let alone university. Of those who are housebound ….

Our information infrastructure is poised to liberate us all. We who [read my book] are playing a small but exciting part in that. This work is dedicated to all of us!

[1] Or the coffee house, which was treated as deeply suspect in Enlightenment Europe for much the same reasons as the Internet today: who knew what depraved or subversive communications might be going on there?

Gersemi wrote:Well some bits do seem to hit the mark, in particular:

"Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data. You don’t know what to ignore"

Excellent if obvious foresight. I comment that all things on the internet are likely guff. Long before the internet I said things printed in newspapers are only there to sell papers. I do miss pre web pub discussions where the facts were discussed and conjecture was rife. Now someone always looks it up.

kempiejon wrote:

Gersemi wrote:Well some bits do seem to hit the mark, in particular:

"Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data. You don’t know what to ignore"

Excellent if obvious foresight. I comment that all things on the internet are likely guff. Long before the internet I said things printed in newspapers are only there to sell papers. I do miss pre web pub discussions where the facts were discussed and conjecture was rife. Now someone always looks it up.

...to get someone else's conjecture?

servodude wrote:...to get someone else's conjecture?

Did you know Dick Van Dyke will be 100 next birthday? So will Angela Lansbury and she's cousin of the former Australian PM.

kempiejon wrote:I do miss pre web pub discussions where the facts were discussed and conjecture was rife. Now someone always looks it up.

Indeed. The author of this entertaining piece makes the same point (point #5) - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... onic_email

Clitheroekid wrote:

kempiejon wrote:I do miss pre web pub discussions where the facts were discussed and conjecture was rife. Now someone always looks it up.

Indeed. The author of this entertaining piece makes the same point (point #5) - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... onic_email

Brilliant!

There are so many good points in there it is invidious to choose any. But I did like this one;

8. It’s given stupid people unfiltered access to each other’s opinions
Once upon a time, the so-called gatekeepers of traditional media restricted the flow of information through narrow, one-way channels. Now stupid people have their own media, where they are free to discuss and mutually reaffirm their dumb ideas. Sadly, this has not been the unmitigated force for good we hoped it would be.

Rather chimes with my own longstanding opinion based on the Internet:

"Until I got the Internet I never realised everyone else was insane."

kempiejon wrote:

Gersemi wrote:Well some bits do seem to hit the mark, in particular:

"Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data. You don’t know what to ignore"

Excellent if obvious foresight. I comment that all things on the internet are likely guff. Long before the internet I said things printed in newspapers are only there to sell papers. I do miss pre web pub discussions where the facts were discussed and conjecture was rife. Now someone always looks it up.

Long before the internet I said things printed in newspapers are only there to sell papers.

I think we have known this for decades. Which I why I prefer to call them 'papers' rather than 'newspapers'.

Where is Lord Rothermere, the owner of the Daily Mail based? It was the south of France years ago, but may be Barbados now?

Owner of the Times and The Sun?

The Guardian still profiting from offshore charity staus?

Not sure about the Daily Express, but I think that the owner is most likely an imaginary figure from Viz.


Steve

PS The Telegraph and Spectator may soon be owned by Arabs in Qatar, who no doubt, will want to expand their readership.

kempiejon wrote:I do miss pre web pub discussions where the facts were discussed and conjecture was rife. Now someone always looks it up.

I generally try and avoid going to the pub with anyone who would have their phone out. Or who is willing to ruin a perfectly good discussion by pulling out their phone to "decide" or "prove" that they are "right".

Although I do enjoy watching a group of young people sitting together in a pub and ignoring each other because their phones are more interesting than their friends. Or are they texting each other rather than just talking to each other?