1 of 4
1
Infographics - the Truthy Project… diffusion network - Indiana University
Posted: 10 October 2010 10:32 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3789
Joined  2010-08-15

Check this out, tracking memes through the cloud.

http://truthy.indiana.edu/

Ira Flatow - Science Friday
http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201010085

Information spreads quickly online, especially in the age of social networking. The ‘Truthy’ project, based at Indiana University, seeks to map the spread of ideas on services such as Twitter and help identify artificially-created memes. By examining how messages get bounced from one member of a network to another, and by examining the context around those messages, the researchers think they can identify ‘astroturfing,’ the creation of false grass-roots political movements. Want to participate in an mini-experiment? Tweet using the key words ‘#truthy, @scifri, and @truthyatindiana’ and the project leaders will try to track their spread.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Infographic of the Day: Truthy Maps Twitter Memes
http://www.fastcompany.com/1692296/infographic-of-the-day-truthy-plots-outbreaks-of-poisonous-memes-on-twitter
BY Cliff KuangThu Sep 30, 2010
Whatever your political bent, it’s safe to say that politics today are dominated by smears and half-truths, lent enormous reach thanks to the Web. Did you hear that Barack Obama is a Muslim that took his vows on the Koran? Or that the Fed is going to put North America on the Amero? Or that fascists walk in the halls of government? You heard it on the Internet and millions are saying the same thing, so it must be true.
A new infographic project out of Indiana University is aiming to combat that: Truthy tracks virulent memes on the Internet, via charts that evolve as rumors spread. (The project gets its name from a term pumped up by Stephen Colbert. “Truthy” being lies calculated to deceive, because they take some nugget of truth and twist it into an unrecognizably muddy form.)

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 October 2010 11:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26

Is there no legal recourse to slander?
I can see that the second amendment protects speech such as “he acts as if”, ” she may be”, “they could be”, but to say that someone IS a Nazi is slanderous and should be accompanied by proof or else may be considered slander, and punishable.
Free speech does not include slander and defamation of character. It is against the law.
And where such speech slanders the President it might be considered sedition.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2010 12:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5166
Joined  2010-06-16

Its the First Amendment.  The second is about the right to bear arms. 

There was a recent study thst found if people heard a lie, then later heard a refutation of it, even if with complete factual documentation, they tended to believe the first lie even more strongly.  As I see it, there are two approaches to combat this.  The first sounds good but is completely unworkable - to train people to think critically and question all statements until they find proof.  Or second, for every candidate to lie about everything and not bother telling the truth about anything.  The public would start out by being completely confused, then get angry, and finally turn against anyone found to be lying.  Unfortunately, the third scenario would be that they would accept all of the lies and live in one of the fantasy worlds, dependent on who they listened to first or whose ideas they relate to.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2010 04:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26
Occam. - 11 October 2010 12:24 AM

Its the First Amendment.  The second is about the right to bear arms. 

There was a recent study thst found if people heard a lie, then later heard a refutation of it, even if with complete factual documentation, they tended to believe the first lie even more strongly.  As I see it, there are two approaches to combat this.  The first sounds good but is completely unworkable - to train people to think critically and question all statements until they find proof.  Or second, for every candidate to lie about everything and not bother telling the truth about anything.  The public would start out by being completely confused, then get angry, and finally turn against anyone found to be lying.  Unfortunately, the third scenario would be that they would accept all of the lies and live in one of the fantasy worlds, dependent on who they listened to first or whose ideas they relate to.

Occam

oops, I just slandered the First Amendment ..... red face

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2010 07:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3789
Joined  2010-08-15

Write4U I think this got posted under the wrong thread.

Write4U - 10 October 2010 11:06 PM

Is there no legal recourse to slander?
I can see that the second amendment protects speech such as “he acts as if”, ” she may be”, “they could be”, but to say that someone IS a Nazi is slanderous and should be accompanied by proof or else may be considered slander, and punishable.
Free speech does not include slander and defamation of character. It is against the law.
And where such speech slanders the President it might be considered sedition.

[ Edited: 11 October 2010 04:31 PM by citizenschallenge.pm ]
 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2010 08:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  10
Joined  2010-08-30

Very interesting.  Reminds me of a good book I finished recently - “True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society” by Farhad Manjoo…

winbert

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2010 11:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26
citizenschallenge.pm - 11 October 2010 07:57 AM

Write4U I think this got posted under the wrong thread.

Write4U - 10 October 2010 11:06 PM

Is there no legal recourse to slander?
I can see that the second amendment protects speech such as “he acts as if”, ” she may be”, “they could be”, but to say that someone IS a Nazi is slanderous and should be accompanied by proof or else may be considered slander, and punishable.
Free speech does not include slander and defamation of character. It is against the law.
And where such speech slanders the President it might be considered sedition.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Doug?

Sorry CC, I did not mean to start a thread, It was a gut reaction to this whole scenario of a “viral” word or sentence being able to ruin careers, mislead the population, stir hatred and mistrust, and possibly incite violence.
I’ll drop this from furher discussion here.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2010 12:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3024
Joined  2010-04-26

Its the First Amendment.  The second is about the right to bear arms.

There was a recent study thst found if people heard a lie, then later heard a refutation of it, even if with complete factual documentation, they tended to believe the first lie even more strongly.  As I see it, there are two approaches to combat this.  The first sounds good but is completely unworkable - to train people to think critically and question all statements until they find proof.  Or second, for every candidate to lie about everything and not bother telling the truth about anything.  The public would start out by being completely confused, then get angry, and finally turn against anyone found to be lying.  Unfortunately, the third scenario would be that they would accept all of the lies and live in one of the fantasy worlds, dependent on who they listened to first or whose ideas they relate to.

There’s always my solution:

All politicians would be followed around by a group of professional hecklers, critics, and leg breakers.  The hecklers would mock them, ridicule their policies, point out the flaws in their platforms, and generally make them look like incompetent clowns.  The critics would present factual counterpoints to their policies and bring up every single example of how and where a policy of theirs had failed or worked out worse than the previous system.  The leg breakers would be there to dole out vicious beatings any time they said anything negative about their opponents, made vague statements about their policies, lied to anyone, got within 500 ft of a lobbyist, or communicated with a lobbyist in any way other than the middle finger or similar vulgar gesture.  Hell, they could be beaten at random, just to keep them on their toes.  I’m not sure yet.

I don’t know if this system would work, but damn do I want to try it.  grin

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2010 02:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10

We should bring back the jester

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2010 04:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3789
Joined  2010-08-15
domokato - 11 October 2010 02:55 PM

We should bring back the jester

You can guess who get’s my vote.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2010 04:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3789
Joined  2010-08-15

But, did anyone look at the links

Check this out, tracking memes through the cloud:

http://truthy.indiana.edu/

  Ira Flatow - Science Friday
  http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201010085

It’s actually a pretty computer program (if it can be called that) and makes for some cool images too.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2010 04:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3789
Joined  2010-08-15
Write4U - 11 October 2010 11:56 AM

Sorry CC, I did not mean to start a thread, It was a gut reaction to this whole scenario of a “viral” word or sentence being able to ruin careers, mislead the population, stir hatred and mistrust, and possibly incite violence.
I’ll drop this from further discussion here.

Oh no. No problem. Feel free to vent a little, I need the company   cool smirk

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2010 12:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11

That was an interesting website. I like the cool designs made by the tweets. I just don’t get the attraction of tweeting. As I was looking at one of the tweets, I could see all of the current tweets posting. ...and I’ve written ‘tweet’ far too many times on this post… cool smirk

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2010 09:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1064
Joined  2007-06-20
Write4U - 10 October 2010 11:06 PM

And where such speech slanders the President it might be considered sedition.

I hope you are joking.  big surprise  The ability to criticize and even say bad things about the President and other elected officials is vital to our freedom and liberties.  Anything like you suggest would be a very dangerous precedent to set that history shows would lead to limiting our freedoms more and more.  These are not random people on the street.  They knew they would be entering the public sphere when they ran for office.  If they can’t handle the heat, they should get out of the political kitchen.  Only despots and dictators are afraid of their citizens speaking out against them.  Granted, I can see a point about not being free to threaten them, but plain old-fashioned bad mouthing them goes to the very heart of the First Amendment.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2010 03:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26
Rocinante - 13 October 2010 09:17 AM
Write4U - 10 October 2010 11:06 PM

And where such speech slanders the President it might be considered sedition.

I hope you are joking.  big surprise  The ability to criticize and even say bad things about the President and other elected officials is vital to our freedom and liberties.  Anything like you suggest would be a very dangerous precedent to set that history shows would lead to limiting our freedoms more and more.  These are not random people on the street.  They knew they would be entering the public sphere when they ran for office.  If they can’t handle the heat, they should get out of the political kitchen.  Only despots and dictators are afraid of their citizens speaking out against them.  Granted, I can see a point about not being free to threaten them, but plain old-fashioned bad mouthing them goes to the very heart of the First Amendment.

Yes, but you cannot ethically lie about facts. That is not “protected speech”.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2010 04:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1064
Joined  2007-06-20
Write4U - 13 October 2010 03:51 PM

Yes, but you cannot ethically lie about facts. That is not “protected speech”.

If that were the case, then Obama would be in prison.  Heck, probably every politician out there would be in prison!  Hmmmm, perhaps it’s not a bad idea after all!  LOL

Lying is bad.  Using the police power of the state to force citizens to tell the truth is worse.  Because eventually the state will start determining what “truth” is, not objective reality. 

Show me in the First Amendment where it says, “Lying is not protected speech.”

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 4
1