A Job Too Big for Big Brother

In a recent "Wired" magazine piece by Scott Gilbertson, the question of how to rate the truthfulness of information on the Web is raised. With the best of intentions, Tim Berners-Lee, "the author of the web's foundation," has revived the idea of an online ratings system, one which would help readers/viewers distinguish between factual and false content on the Web.

http://www.webmonkey.com/blog/Does_the_Web_Need_a__Ministry_of_Truth__

But, as Gilbertson cautions, such an idea, in the wrong hands, recalls the dangers of centralized, authoritarian information-control in George Orwell's classic dystopian novel, 1984. And that, at the least threatening, such a system would be downright messy and impractical. Because -- truth being a moving target -- who is to say what truth is?

With all kinds of information from heck-knows-who available in cyberspace, do you think the fundamental standards of journalism are even more greatly valued today when it comes to certain online content? I.e., accuracy, fairness, balance, etc. If so, do you think such standards will encourage a higher level of expectation for accuracy among online audiences?

Do you think it's too much work to actively decide for yourself what is factual on the web, where you'd prefer to have someone else, a web community, or institution decide that for you? Or do you think a balanced, enlightened education and the development of independent "critical thinking" skills are your best guard against censorship and deception? And what might this mean when many people don't have the luxury of such an education?

A hypothetical scenario: what if a compelling, credible-sounding lie was posted on the Web about one of the two presidential candidates, and where that lie went "viral" just two days before the general election, and with many in the electorate believing that lie to be truthful? The candidate would have little time to effectively rebut the falsehood, and the final outcome of the election could be swayed.

Another extreme example is the infamous Orson Welles "War of the Worlds" radio hoax back in 1938, and the national hysteria it caused. How could the online "community" today help train audience expectations to recognize the difference between fact and fiction? And to what extent might we ourselves be contributing to the dumbing-down of the Web and online audiences?

Does all this suggest a new kind of "digital divide"? One where access to the Web is not the problem, but where online divisions reflect stark socio-economic differences that some might wish to exploit for their own agenda?

Or is none of this even a legitimate or new concern, with online audiences being more savvy than that, and all things to work themselves out in the wash?

Whatever your opinion, here's to the wool not being pulled over your eyes!

- Misako M.