/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10680206
I agree with all this. Not only does scientific misinformation need to be highlighted and exposed to the internet surfing masses in an accessible fashion as for political polarization people need to be trained in logic more, perhaps even philosophy as that prevents radicalization of ideas because philosophy is all about precision, discourse, and deconstruction. People think that they know anything and share their arguments with too much confidence. They choose what they want to believe instead of actually examining the structures of their argument from the bottom up. People are too caught on knowing an objective truth because they want to justify their behaviors and shortcomings.

>>10680206
>implying radicalization is somehow morally wrong and something unnatural

Gee, it’s as if cramming vastly different competing groups into one civilization would lead to conflict or something.

>>10680284
>blah blah generic talking point
get some new material brainlet

>>10680284
Radicalization in the context of information has shown to misinform and it is immoral.

See people, this is so natural, people assume wrongly and try to misinform.

>>10680265
I think no one should be forced to be trained it could deter them from the respect of information, like in school.

I think information should be shown spreading with visual patterns and the visual patterns explained and argued simply.

That is all there is to it. Where it comes from and in relation to what other information.

>>10680284
To misinform and misinformation is immoral because the judgment is not based on awareness but on random chance.
I have to be precise with my words because you could attack me again trying to put words in me.

I am not sure what you were getting to, but I understand the differences in general and multiculturalism has to be taken into consideration when forming an opinion on an information.

>>10680289
>most generic possible talking point

>>10680306
No, the most generic point is using emotions like you do to show you are entitled of being aware.

>>10680306
>generic dumb frog poster

is it possible to be "radicalized" without first having a legitimate grievance that's hard or impossible to resolve by civil means?

>>10680342
yes

>>10680346

is that the case in most instances though?

>>10680353
yes

>>10680360

i don't believe so. i don't think most people deviate from the cultural norm so far as to be called a "radical" without a strong reason to do so.

propagandists take advantage of "potential" that's already there.

>>10680371
people do all kinds of things without strong reasons

although, OP, if you want to talk about misinformation, it might be good to provide a few specific examples

>>10680371
>>10680342
Not voting is a radical choice.
Most young people are voting listening to their parents which are influenced by a media they can't use.
Most voting is radicalized without any particular significance other than people believing that their single vote is not so important.

Which it is if there is such a wide-spread media manipulation and misinformation.

This thread is not a "people are evil", that's not the spirit of the thread at all.
In fact, I think that if there was a way to see how information is spread and people would continuously see it, then it would form a standard that only the real delusional ones would fight.

Next, it would be useful to point out whoever goes against the standard and feed them information that shows they are delusional, giving them support as much as possible.

>>10680410
>In fact, I think that if there was a way to see how information is spread and people would continuously see it, then it would form a standard that only the real delusional ones would fight.

lol, if more people understood the flow of information it would be open season, you'd see a wholesale destruction of the media apparatus, the ruling elite, and various parasite subgroups

>>10680423
People are family based. If there is corruption, they would bring it down specifically at the higher ranks to give example.

Nothing would be disrupted, because everyone has a family to protect.
In a society revolution happens only when the majority of the families are dying of hunger.

propaganda is group control. it disrupts natural similarity-based grouping instincts. opinions don't matter, group formation and advancement matter. you miss the big picture when you try to "correct the record"

radicalization, polarization, misinformation, NPR, fox news, family guy, etc. they all serve the purpose of preventing self-organization and interest-based group formation. that's what it all boils down to, preventing white middle class americans and europeans from advancing their interests as a group.

what was socially just today was socially unjust yesterday, and what was socially just yesterday is socially just today. it's all fake news. it's all behavioral conditioning and control. none of it's real.

and this fact is all anyone needs to know about mass media in the west.

>>10680461
You can not know everyone's opinion without tracing the source of the information in mass.
>>10680440
You can not know everyone's opinion without tracing the source of the information in mass.

>>10680461
If you imply it is good:
You are extremely contradictory, whether you want to admit it or not.

You describe a process of media manipulation by few political parties as to prevent the individuality by being individual.
You have not said if it was good or not, but if you think it is, it's extremely contradictory.
It is basic brute-force to gain money and influence.

>>10680473
>>10680475
No, this fact is required for political parties to work on their agenda, mistrust can be politically driven.

The closer people get to earth flatteners, the better it is for radical parties.

>>10680478
>You describe a process of media manipulation by few political parties as to prevent the individuality by being individual.

no, it's not to prevent individuality, it's to prevent interest-based group formation. the natural self-organization that occurs among people who share common ground and common interests.

This is not /sci/ anymore. This is /pol/ and if anyone here is from /sci/ is doing nothing about it.

>>10680485
? Freedom of speech is part of one's individuality.
Capitalism generates interest-based group formations, campaigns are run with money.

No one here wants to hear an information and lecture on why it is important to misinform people.
Obviously if it is important for your point of view, all you say could be false.
End of the argument.

You are contraddictory

>>10680501

it has nothing to do with capitalism. it's an anti-competitive strategy that plutocrats are using to effect an incompetent le56% underclass while they run away with the lead using genetic engineering.

>>10680506
I never said that your idea had to do with capitalism.
I said that Capitalism too forms interest-based groups and your idea is cancerous to begin with.

Stop putting words in my mouth and being Infamous.

>>10680512

shut the fuck up. i know what i'm talking about. i can see at least 200 years into the future

>>10680516
Exactly, thank you.

>>10680518

but really tho, i'm actually right

>>10680501
>capitalism does this
>people making free choices does this
>b-but my ideal utopian society where everyone behaves the way I want them to totally wouldn't

>>10680519
Thank you for misinform me about you being right.
I already know you are wrong, you do not have to state it so clearly.

>>10680523
Who talked about Utopia's society?
I brought up Capitalism as an example to show that it was contradictory to attack interest-based groups, unless you attacked Capitalism.

Stop putting words in my mouth.
All I am proposing is to track back information.
Stop assuming what other people mean or say.

>>10680529
The only alternative to Captialism is control. And all control freaks are utopianists. Prove me wrong.

>>10680554
I have never talked in favor or against Capitalism.
You are among the people that misinform.

>>10680559
I never said you did talk about capitalism, I made an observation about socio economic systems. You are misinforming the people that read this.

>>10680565
You are either:

Misinforming people by shifting the argument to Capitalism.
or
Assuming that I am against or in favor of capitalism and I should be arguing about it.
Again, copying my methodology to spot misinformation, will not work if you are actually misinforming :)

>>10680581
So you are either:
Not understanding the nature of a society and how interest groups accumulate by law and are therefore misinforming people about what you think a society is and how it is usually articulated.

Misinforming people with the word paradox, which obviously has a negative connotation and associating it with captialism in order to get a response

Too stupid to realize what words you have used, in which case you are unnecessarily misinforming people.

>>10680609
Point one:
Too stupid to understand how important is
to say lies ( said by a liar by definition)

Point two:
It is a paradox to make a website that traces information because... even though I admit information exists and it's better to lie... tracing them is not possible?

Point 3

You are stupid11!11

poor troll?
meh applause?

>>10680581
To say that Capitalism creates something is inherently misleading because Capitalism is simply means not fucking with people. When you say it creates something not only are you implying that it isn't the default state, but also that if you fuck with people in just the right way you can eliminate natural human behaviors.

Why would any current system or managers thereof want to prevent individuality?
More individuality means political action is usually disorganized, unfocused and contradictory.
What's dangerous to the system (for good and bad) is strong, collective organization, acting with a single mind to procure change.
Individuality means stability, a lesser threat of radical change.

>>10680635
The need of money will generate groups based on the interest of money?

If John says I am going to make money with X, do you want to be part of X?
John2 most likely is interested in money and says yes?

If you come up with your own new definitions for interest-based now that I made it explicit, do not worry.

I do not care, this thread was about finding a way to make a website to trace information, being it false or not.
It's not about labeling information as false or true.

So, everything you say is inherently unrelated.

>>10680636
I never was against capitalism.

Those group-leaders and influencers, would greatly suffer from the website I am proposing, because they could not lie to attract people.

Try to understand that tracing information does not mean labeling as true or false, it means that you couldn't lie frequently.

>>10680206
your solution if I understood right is some kind of method of study or a program to visually represent the flow of ideas in society?
that may be good for some people, namely anyone who still trusts mainstream news outlets, but confidence in them is already at an all-time low. most people are begrudgingly using whatever sources they go to, saying something like "it's the least bad option".
what we really need imo is information sources that are provably reliable. for example I think all news outlets need to literally have a "right wing" and a "left wing" and have an equal number from both sides on every step of the process (reporters, anchors, fact checkers, etc). of course this is easy to fake by only hiring idiots to represent the opposition (CNN), but that's super easy to spot so it doesn't matter

>>10680206
what's wrong w being radical

>>10680658
Way easier.
You simply chain news and posts, based on the companies and public profiles.

That way you know who gets the information where and how frequently.

Exposing bad habits and lies. Bad news source will break apart if they are found to be in a bad chain of sources.

This way only journals and public profiles that manage to give sources through approved by the scientific community and through scientific vectors will be recognized.

This way people will be able only to lie on the interpretation and then become a laughing stock for the scientific community.

Very easy idea, very difficult implementation, it costs a lot of money for a campaign to do this on a single target.

>>10680672
through sources approved by the*

>>10680659
Wars? Everything?
Being forced by a bunch of bodybuilders furry pan transexuals studying geology and turning black if white and white if black, while on a lambo shooting with guns as similarly built policemen fake caring about it is what's wrong with extreme radicalism, especially when you are forced to fight for such country

>>10680681
being forced ... to fight for the country*

>>10680642
A website like this has to solve some very big technical problems, requiring both lots of computing power and very good engineers.
In my view, these seem formally impossible, but they are at least big enough hurdles to stop small teams from implementing it in practice.

1. Most claims are not properly sourced, so knowing where to find information is very hard if not impossible even for humans.

2. The system would have to be automated, and despite machine learning, computers are still much worse at understanding language than humans. Perhaps solvable with massive amounts of computational power, however.

3. The site would need to get resources from someone for the large computational cost. The funders could easily force the site maintainers into manipulating the algorithms.

4. If most "group-leaders and influencers" would greatly suffer from this website, they'd fight it with everything they have -- which is a lot of resources against a single website. Under such pressure, the website would certainly be taken down, or at least so widely discredited that no-one used it.

>>10680685

1 labeled as still not sourced, so journals have to source

2 the system is not only automated if a controversy is rising up because of a false correlation of hundreds of news, it would be moderated right away so that people check the correlation of the sources is as precise as possible

3 donations against misinformation, everything public and any programmer can contribute too, bank account public too, no one is making money out of it

4 The only serious problem, which is why the collective data of the site would be P2P based and it would be as hard to bring down as the whole internet

>>10680639
Money does not require Capitalism and Capitalism doesn't require money. Any workable system will have some form of property and every system will see groups forming around common interests.

btw snopes and politifact already exist and they're shit

>>10680699
Cool philosophy.
Either way, this is about generating a history of chains of sources related to a source.

It's not about a single fact, it's about staining increasingly whoever uses misinformation and the definition of misinformation be decided by the people.

If the people see everything in correlation and become all earth flatteners, I am OK with it.

You had all the chances to pick the alternative chain of sources of the scientific community.


I actually want radicalization but not political, in terms of information.
I want people to be politically radicalized regarding chains of truth.
So that the benefits of scientific discoveries and knowledge will be more evident in the future for who is radicalized in that direction.

I want failure to be related to misinformation and not the other way around. So that the world does not become a place for who shouts louder.
Not because I am a scientist, but because I can't help be bored by misinformation.

Sounds interesting to me OP. But radicalization isn't entirely a function of disinformation and propaganda. The internet itself lends to radicalization even in the absence of those because

1) legitimate information radicalizes as well, based on context, eg. immigrant crime radicalizes right wing, growing inequality radicalizes left wing, etc.
2) radicalization primarily occurs within existing communities based on emotional feedback loops (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1528077))

>>10680723
this is why I said this>>10680710

I realized that radicalization was happening in the direction of misinformation, which is random/plotted-by-media-or-influencers radicalization, instead I want a radicalization in favor of information

>>10680710
>the people
No such thing. There is no one consensus among "the people". You'll just have factions bickering like always

>>10680727

I feel like the underlying assumption you're making is that total clarity regarding information and its origin will resolves conflicts between 'tribes', which isn't necessarily the case. There is a value judgement to be made when interpreting information and it varies from person to person, and there is no one correct way to look at it. A leftist and a conservative might always disagree even if they have perfect clarity about the information that feeds their beliefs and the beliefs of the other party

I realized I actual like radicalization in the sentimental sense, searching for the extreme.

But I want the extreme ruled by everyone's information and self-awareness of truth, I am perfectly fine with digitalization and highly technological innovations, I am against the radical use of it to misinform people.

If a person forced me with a military pointing a gun at me, telling me to study mathematics to have a better understanding of statistics and don't be driven by political groups, it would be the most controversial fashist approach on freedom, but I probably would not be so against it ideologically. Especially if no one is ever harmed for it, other than the stress caused.

>>10680728
I do not need 1 consensus, I am perfectly ok with tribes and grouping as far as groupings are not broken and manipulated because of misinformation by other groups and everything becomes a shithole

never said that>>10680735

>>10680206
So you want to visualize the spread of memes? (By “memes” I mean any packet of information, not just “funny Internet jokes”.) As far as I’m concerned this is analogous to visualizing the spread of infectious diseases. This is already done to some extent, e.g., with #trending indicators on Twitter or YouTube, and with political maps showing democrats overwhelmingly in cities and republicans in rural areas (this may seem like a trivial fact, but the reason for it is quite elusive). Another interesting one is baby names: https://youtu.be/wgnZ24DsOpQ.. These names spread from brain to brain through space and time.

The biggest problem I see is that people have a strong tendency to attribute their actions and ideas to themselves. They don’t like the idea that they’re influenced by the spread of information. They don’t like to be confronted with the fact that naming their daughter Jennifer wasn’t some cute unique idea they had, but an idea that they got infected with. They think they have ideas, when in reality ideas have people. In reality, we’re all NPC’s, you see.
>inb4 No! I am the author of my thoughts!!!

>>10680284
Get better material

>>10680742
you will never get them to agree on what is and isn't misinformation

>>10680744
>They think they have ideas, when in reality ideas have people
Both statements are abstractions and neither is entirely true.

>>10680756
You do not have to agree, you just have to trace a chain of information and sources.
>>10680755
>>10680762

>>10680406
No they don't.

>>10680777
this

People do things for a reason and they are lied to so that will do exactly what it is expected if they are lied to.

>>10680773
>rapresents

>>10680206
What if my goal is for everyone to be misinformed and radicalized? What can this thread provide me?

>>10680777
Yes, they do.

>>10680780
>rapresents
Op here, you are kind of a loser as a grammar-nazi if you have been reading me so far without noticing any other typo/mistake.
I think I made at least 6 mistakes in the opening post, too cba checking back, I am obv ESL

>>10680783
shoo shoo europoo

>>10680781
>>10680681
If that's what you want, be my guest.
Radicalization is in favor of minorities too, you know. If you want violence and there are radical leftists, you will be treated like a teddy bear so that you might change your mind.

>>10680284
Add to that increasing scarcity of natural resources and you have a recipe for the perfect all-time catastrophe.

>>10680796
He is right, radicalization has to happen.
But it has to be interlaced-information driven.

Meaning that a person voting has to know it is going to vote someone that is against the scientific community and all sources of scientific academies.

People have to know the overall sources of an influencer.
They have to, it has to be radicalized.

>>10680284
And it doesn't even have to be different competing groups. An initially homogeneous group would subdivide into various factions to better compete for limited resources under those conditions.

>>10680789
>Radicalization is in favor of minorities too
>If you want violence and there are radical leftists

>he thinks I care about the gay political teams

>>10680524

i have nothing to gain by misinforming you.

>>10680796
>>10680808

Economists and bankers and that twisted, primitive worldview naturally destroyed everything cool about this world as rapidly and as efficiently as humanly possible.

>>10680296
>I think information should be shown spreading with visual patterns
What do you mean by this?
I think its an interesting idea, but a little vague.
Would you mind elaborating?

>>10680342
See the iraq war.
How much of the destruction that was caused was legitimate?
The US destroyed far more than just 2 buildings.

>>10680461
>that's what it all boils down to, preventing white middle class americans and europeans from advancing their interests as a group.
you think thats the only group thats being targetted?
the world is a little bigger than the us m8

>>10680864
or the obama banker bailout...
neither of these things are a factor OP wants to consider.

>>10680483
yeah this be true

>>10680864

i suppose that's true, but 9/11 and other "terrorism" was perhaps the radicalizing factor there, or at least part of it.

>>10680872
>or the obama banker bailout...

unfortunate, but what does that have to do with radicalization?

>>10680892
No. They kicked the shit out of Afghanistan for that. Almost everyone was behind them. Iraq is what made people go hmmm

>>10680871
>you think thats the only group thats being targetted?

maybe, maybe not. most other races don't self-organize quite as well, so they're subjugated by simpler means.

>>10680895
It lead to more widespread mistrust of authority, more widespread belief that authority was no longer there for the people.

>>10680559
youre right, you know it has a name?
its called derailing a discussion
you introduce a controversial topic which will inflame oppinions and incite responses
as a result the original topic is forgotten

>>10680636
We are becoming more individualized while becoming more homogeneous simultaneously.

>>10680898

us soldiers aren't exactly "radicals" in the usual sense of the word, however tragic the iraq war was

>>10680659
radicals tend to ignore opposing evidence
radicals tend to want to impose their viewpoint on everyone
a couple of small issues with radicalism

>>10680697
sounds like a dope idea for a free software project
you should write a proposal

it's all a pointless discussion anyway, there's really no such thing as a "radical". it's an intradiegetic concept.

>>10680892
thats the point
otherwise normal people can justify almost anything with enough propaganda

>>10680916
have they killed innocent people in their quest for justice or freedom or whatever they call it?
yes?
oh look its just like the dudes that say allahu achbar and then blow up. they believe they are doing something good.

>>10680935
see
>>10680929

>>10680929
what do you mean by intradiegetic concept?

>>10680944

i don't quite know myself, it's just the closest way i can describe it.

>>10680860
Imagine this, but with millions of them and public profiles too all interlaced.
>>10680864 This would solve controversy
>>10680871
You don't know what groups are clearly targeted? Other people do not know?
This would solve it
>>10680872
Another source unclear for everyone?
Here visualize the relations, very simplified version for this, but you can imagine.

>>10680876
>>10680892
How is 9/11 fake news spread? Who knows, you might know, but everyone else not, prove you are right with a scientific method!

>>10680895
What is radicalized, what is not?
Let's find out.
>>10680900
Maybe not, maybe yes. Maybe ynos?

>>10680910
Is he really right though?
Are you really?
>>10680915
Many abstract concepts, little standardized interlaced sources.

>>10680916
Are soldiers controversial? Let's observe all social bubbles that are public, shall we?

>>10680918
Do they really? We need a lot more information.


>>10680929


It is a pointless discussion.

>>10680947
so its bull

>>10680954

your writing is very hard to follow

>>10680958

no, it's an intradiegetic concept, so to speak

>>10680954
so the balls represent people or sources? or both?
does the location mean anything? what do the lines mean?

>>10680959
True, but my ideas are very simple to follow.

Chain all sources.

>>10680954
yeah i get the idea, is to make the job of tracing sources and information flow in a more 'scientific' way
which is a pretty good idea man, but still i feel like its a very ambitious idea, so you can expect it to be laborious to accomplish

>>10680971
The big balls represent who produces sources.
If two balls are interlaced it means that one is feeding the other, you could make arrows to see who feeds who and in what percentage.

Basically all information will be collected with the time and public IPs, then organized visually.

So, everyone knows how little certain public figures that are also sources of information will be related to commercial or academic sources.

Simply because they will publish or not such sources.

This will force people to use academic sources

>>10680989
yeah i really like the idea
you could probably make an app or a legit program if you wanted to

>>10680206
What to one is radical to another is normal. Every single political opinion was radical at one point in history.
Things change, deal with it.

Are X country servers producing fake news?
Are X politicians source academic sources?
Are X politicians sourcing fake news?


Everything that is not interlaced to academies will be considered as fake, except human events.

You will not need journalism anymore.
Everything will be published and if the count of sources is not high enough and not interlaced enough with academies you will know.

You simply will know.
Meaning that if you go against academies, it is your choice.

It is the ultimate radicalization and political polarization.

And it is based on truth.
This has to happen

>>10680992
I can't and it takes multiple programmers to make it free-source and reliable, I am not a programmer but I can help with the math.

>>10681003
Read this:
>>10681004
>>10680954

>>10681007
Well if you know math then you can write an algorithm. Or at least a sketch of such. Right?

>>10681004
>And based on truth.
>This has to happen
The problem is that "truth" in fields like economics, business, political science, and sociology are not based on facts, but on people's opinions, world views, and values (which change over time).

And those are the fields that determine what scientists get funded.

Your entire thesis is based on the fact that the status quo is right, infallible, and unquestionable, and your aim is to make it easier for the mob to attack those who do not subscribe to mainstream views. And if that had been the case through history then humanity would still be primitive and barbarian.

Your thinking is mob rule, totalitarian and scary imo.

>>10681012
I can, but the problem with interlacing sources is how heavy the sequences are.
I think OEIS's support would be needed.

You basically need to treat all links and sequences of words as parts of bitcoins and string them so that you know the interconnection and it's too hard for me.

>>10681028
No, truth is the ability to see all relations with a glance of an eye.

If after all relations are made and shown and you decide to believe in earth flatteners.
That is perfectly fine.

I do not want to unite people, I want to divide them with no inconsistency and manipulation.

>>10681039
Your reliance on "academies" is the problem. Right now, most of them are not scientists, or even interested in science.

>>10681004
>>10681007
>academia
>unbiased
Academia believes exactly what it is paid to believe. You can read about the tobacco industry's manipulation of research, where using faked statistics scientists adamantly claimed that smoking didn't cause cancer.

>>10681043
No, I rely on everyone seeing all interconnections, seeing who lies and how much. If academies lie, I am fine with it, stop assuming a political position that I do not have.

A L G O R I T H M - - - - A B S T R A C T

With a web crawler on the internet used by the majority of people get all public sites and profiles and arrange them in sets.

Define sources as a physical person, company or association producing written or visual content.

Start collecting all different strings of words temporarily.
Discard the ones that do not appear multiple times.

Take note of time, IP of the strings and source that do appear multiple times.

Interlace sources by the unique string of text, organizing who feeds who with the time and IPs and quantity.

>>10681051
>>10681070

I do not care if Universities in some countries are corrupted, if they are they shall be seen how they are related to commercial fake news.

That will crush them.
I do believe that UK and US academies are corrupted, do not worry.

Read >>10681070

>>10681070
>lie
There's that favourite word again from you people...

What is a "lie" when it comes to things like economics, business, political science, and sociology, which as I said before are revolve around what the values of a particular society are?

Most of what you consider "academies" has nothing to do with science or fact, and everything to do with values, opinion, and world view, in which context "lies" and "truth" are completely irrelevant.

That is the problem.

>>10681075
You're all about the EU, right?

>>10681070
>Define sources as a physical person, company or association producing written or visual content.
>Start collecting all different strings of words temporarily.
>Discard the ones that do not appear multiple times.
>Take note of time, IP of the strings and source that do appear multiple times.
>Interlace sources by the unique string of text, organizing who feeds who with the time and IPs and quantity.

An ultra high tech stasi, basically.

Nice. You're German, no doubt.

>>10681085
We will not label what lie is, we will interlace information whether it is true or not.

CAN YOU FUCKING READ YOU MISINFORMING BRAINLET

>>10681089
Italian
>>10681086
I like Sri Lanka, it has good tea

>>10681102
global citizen...

-t

You all are so fucking retarded even when you play dumb, it's damn laughable, start making daily threads and programming it, instead of masturbating with memes and pewdiepie, or acting superior because you don't go on Reddit in 2019 where literally all 4chan is a Reddit cesspool

>>10681102
You really love that word huh? Seems like a schizo fixation.

>>10681131
you really like the word schizo seems like you are jealous of people getting mathematical axioms

>>10681131
As far as he's concerned a "lie" is whatever idea is not mainstream.

>>10681141
No, people would define what a lie is.

They will see how everything is interlaced and decide who lies and who doesn't.

Polarizing everything based on truth.
For example, you are being retarded, if I read a news of a journalist sharing your news often, I would know he is retarded too for my definition of retarded.

Do you understand now? What the fuck is interlaced information? You brainlet

>>10681131
Or actually I should say as far as his algorythm is concerned a "lie" will be anything that is not mainstream.

absolutely mob rule. and the mob is retarded.

>>10681144
ya I understand. your idea is stupid. it will stifle anything that isn't status quo or mainstream. it will stifle creativity and human progress.

the spanish inquisition would love your algorithm

>>10681148
>No, people would define what a lie is.
>They will see how everything is interlaced and decide who lies and who doesn't.
>Polarizing everything based on truth.
>For example, you are being retarded, if I read a news of a journalist sharing your news often, I would know he is retarded too for my definition of retarded.
>Do you understand now? What the fuck is interlaced information? You brainlet
No, people would define what a lie is.

They will see how everything is interlaced and decide who lies and who doesn't.

Polarizing everything based on truth.
For example, you are being retarded, if I read a news of a journalist sharing your news often, I would know he is retarded too for my definition of retarded.

Do you understand now? What the fuck is interlaced information? You brainlet

>>10681152
No, people would define what a lie is.

They will see how everything is interlaced and decide who lies and who doesn't.

Polarizing everything based on truth.
For example, you are being retarded, if I read news of a journalist sharing your news often, I would know he is retarded too for my definition of retarded.

Do you understand now? What the fuck is interlaced information? You brainlet

>>10680487
I think this thread is a bit of both, but what OP seems to be asking about is a solution to one of the consequences of digitization, that's a pretty /sci/ worthy concept.
And I'd rather discuss that than yet another IQ thread.

>>10681152
No, people would define what a lie is.

They will see how everything is interlaced and decide who lies and who does not.

Polarizing everything based on truth.
For example, you are being retarded, if I read news of a journalist sharing your news often, I would TEMPORARILY ASSUME he is retarded too for my definition of retarded.

Do you understand now? What the fuck is interlaced information? You brainlet


I see a university being interlaced with a source of fake news?
I would know the University is cancerous.


I see you are an idiot influencer sharing lines found in neo-nazi sources of information?

I know you are a fucking neo-nazi. Personally people would know.

You do not like the PUBLIC MESSAGE has been recorded and interlaced WITH PUBLIC MESSAGES?

Well, sucks to be you.

No people would assume you are a Neo-Nazi unless you continuosly fed things from a neo-nazi source.
Obviously.

The Public is already being manipulated,
The societies are alread based on people on facebook.
You are an idiot if you think that showing inconsistencies of influencers would damage society.

>>10681163
THANK YOU FOR FUCK SAKE.
THAT WAS ME.

FUCKING ME. THE OP

>>10681173
>You better fucking conform
>Or else
>Assimilate now

>>10680900
Blacks in the US generally have been hit super fucking hard by this in recent years. especially now that we have an extremely polarizing president.
The whole white privilege thing, institutionalized racism, racism = prejudice + power, black twitter, etc.

>>10681184

No, you fucking moron, everyone will decide based on factual associations.
Everyone will decide knowing the factual public relations.

If you want to waste your life on alcohol and drugs and vote randomly, you are free to do that.
It's not about conforming.
It is about giving the tool of public information interlations to the average user.
Instead of keeping it for the giants like
Top-It-Companies/Top-Journalist-Companies/Top politicians

>>10681153
but you are the definition of retarded

>>10681173
>LITERALLY EVERYTHING THAT GROUP OF MEANIES SAYS THAT I DON'T LIKE IS EVIL. 100% OF EVERYTHING THEY SAY IS EVIL
>IF YOU SAY ANYTHING LIKE WHAT THEY SAY YOU'RE AN EVIL MEANY TOO AND IM TELLING!!!!
>REEEEE

You're fucking retarded lol.

>>10681189
IQ 133, I am not the definition, but I agree I could be,
also read >>10681188

>>10681192
I might be, you prefer disinformation, for me a disinformed person is retarded.
You can have all the definitions you want :)

>>10681193
Online IQ tests don't count. You are the best definition.

>>10681196
not online

>>10680697
>everything public and any programmer can contribute too,
Then what's stopping those who want to protect themselves from hiring people to alter it?
Even now companies can control what people say about them in Wikipedia.

>>10681196
Dude. I'm sure our globohome consumer fascist overlords are gonna gonna give this guy the nobel peace prize or some shit lol.

Then who'll be laughing?

It really sucks you can not check how reliable is the source I would give to prove I have an IQ 133, if only you could prove I am not a reliable source scientifically.

Instead of using your unscientific "common sense" that everyone claim to have

>>10681202
It would be P2P, they can kill me if they want, but as soon as the idea is out and there are programmers spreading code, it can't be stopped

>>10681203
>prove I have an IQ 133
I wouldn't believe that unless you were an Ashkenazi jew. In which case, all of the scientific data could be sourced to show that it is true, you are in fact a genius with genius IQ.

>>10681209
I know you believe instead of prove, do not worry. I did not expect a different message :)

>>10681075
You don't get it. It doesn't matter how accurate your system is, if it contradicts the (corrupt) ruling opinion it will be suppressed! What do you think how many people tried to report "accurate" news, and where are they now? Assange is your best example, he reported the truth on all governments and he will get life in a torture chamber in the US.
Every political truth is subjective, and the only thing you can do is pick the right side. ONLY this is what defines normal vs radical, and of course the ruling elite will call every movement that tries to depose it "radical".

>>10681211
So you're not an ashkenazi jew, but you are a genius with genius iq of 133?

hmmm... seems fishy....

>>10681214
No, internet can't be suppressed.
P2P is an internet standard.
Your ignorance is showing.

Piracy was never stopped.

>>10680809
>Anime poster
>Trying this hard to be a snowflake edgelord
This phenomenon will come back to bite you in the ass

>>10681197
Paying for an IQ test means you're actually <80.

>>10681186

in their natural state they live in mud huts/nests. i think they're doing fine, relatively speaking. they could not maintain nearly the same standard of living without riding the coattails of white society. my uni is niggertown USA but i've only met one of them with a decent head on his shoulders. most of them just take up space, pay with diversity bux, and act like nigs. they don't know how good they have it.

>>10681223
never paid, I had to take it


If there are programmers interested for volonteering, I can gather more of them
interlacedinformationwww@gmail.com

if /sci/ is not proof enough of the cesspool /pol/ spreaded, look around you

if one single programmer to support this,
I will start a daily thread against misinformation, until enough programmers are found to make make the process of searching for them authomatic.

Eventually, everything will be open-source

>>10681236
>I had to take it
When they were running the schizo tests amirite?

>>10681236
I would try having this thread on /g/ as well, it's an interesting idea.
If you could at least get it to the point where you could at least test it that would be good.

But on a related note there's just way too much fucking information out there on the net right now.
1000s of 1000s of 1000s of gigabytes.
Trying to keep track of a sizable portion of that is probably impossible

>>10681243
>>10681260

this is the only info you need, peeps
>>10680440

>>10681260
We just need big fishes, if we collect those texts, we can check how they are related using mathematics to work on them too.

>>10681282
What I mean is, that with a giant webcrawler and sequences to investigate we probably just need, 300/500 big fishes.

>>10681290
Do not get me wrong, by big fishes I do not mean economically powerful people.

I literally mean the entities that spread most news.
So that they are investigated.

>>10680973
Actually I agree with the former poster. Learn to structure your arguments for proper communication.

>>10681218
Nobody is gonna use your P2P system that's the point. Alternative news sources are droned out by the mass media. It's not a question of technology, it's not a question of veracity, it's a question of politics alone.

>>10680206
Misinformation is organized by media owners, they won't allow anything that opposes it.

>>10680206
It's a problem of burger education, really, everybody else know that media always lie.

>>10680206
No. It's nice to see thought diverging from the narrow confines of recent history. I don't care how much is false, because the affirmative power of falsity gives falsehoods importance. Not to mention the falsity of the traditionally narrow world view that you seek to reinstate.

>>10681467
>It's nice to see thought diverging from the narrow confines of recent history.
It's not though? The exact opposite is happening.

>>10682489
Oh ya for sure. These days everyone follows some whacky religion, not like back in the past when everyone believed whatever they want.

You're retarded. Your idea is retarded.

100% OP. I too think we have to stop spreading misinformation to stop the evil radical nazis
therefore:

>we have to stop the dangerous misinfo saying that only men have penises
>that africans are not natural born rocket scientists (with huge bbc)
>that islam is not the one true religion
>that whitebois and azn's arent raycis white privelige

all these damaging narratives are decieving americans into believing in family units and "biological/national continuation(yuck)"

we must refuse to platform these dangerous radical russian ideas for the good of our democracy

HAIL SCIENCE!