Web Inventor is fearful of web future

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6108578.stm

So basically it doesn't go into much detail, but what sort of "misinformation" does he mean? Governments brainwashing or tons of weird unprovable new age stuff? OR just one massive advert?

Prolly that AL Gore really did -help- invent the internet and was lampooned for saying so.

well i think he means that already there is a lot of misinformation, of all kinds, like forums for example, and in the future he thinks that will become more common, rather than less.

After just the first 3 paras of that I'm thinking: Horse! Bolted! Doh!

I was shocked that the mind that helped get it started was able to think quite like that suggests it might.

Less invented, more fluked by the look of that.

Another hero looks like biting the dust then. Rats, I hate it when that happens.

"
Governments brainwashing or tons of weird unprovable new age stuff? OR just one massive advert?
"

Probably all of it. It may turn out like in Fahrenheit 457 (or so) where books are declared ilegal due to their contradicting informations.

More and more every internet connection became something like a bug that allows some people to look into the citizens rooms, like in the book "1984". Best of all, people even spend money for their bugs.

All you can do is use it for your personal desinformation.

Fear itself is misinformation, so that this guy says he is afraid for the future is, itself, the very misinformation that he is suggesting he is combatting. He is part of it.

I also don't think this guy is any kind of hero, okay so he invented the initial form of the internet but he could not in any way at all have foreseen how it would've developed and grown and all the many things that other people have brought to it to make it what it is.

I do think there will be and is misinformation on the web. Advertising, for one, is misinformation. Popups, spam, people trying to deceive other people to open certain emails, is misinformation. Try telling the commercial interests not to misinform or misconstrue or misrepresent for the sake of a dollar/pound.

People don't need to be concerned about being misinformed, they need to put their focus on having better discernment skills and not being so gullible.

Misinformation? Haha, as opposed to what? Believing that 2006 years ago a man was hanged and came to life and fly to heaven.

Misinformation will always exist in one form or another, personally since the invent of the Internet people are much more aware of their surrounds in the world more than they were even just 10 years ago and everyone has easy access to finding out facts for themselves. The Internet is a good thing and long may it prosper.

> Believing that 2006 years ago a man was hanged and came to life and fly to heaven

No one believes that, he was crucified. If you care not to believe that is fine, but there is no need to insult those who do.

ENAY was making the point that 33% of people claim to believe something as mythical in nature as if people believed Aesop's fables centered around real animals.

If you can't tell that something as obviously impossible and proofless as jesus rising from the dead is false, than how are you going to distinguish between something real on the internet and something that never happened.

Big shock, the history of the world isn't really like the history books say.

There are only 2 options. Either the general public gets to decide what is 'information' or the government does. I know who I trust more to not, at least successfully, try to misdirect me. And it isn't a government.

I'm not going to blame this on the ignorance in the USA at present... I'm sure it is no help, but people believe in gods across the whole planet.

As a whole, humanity isn't taught how to critically think. They don't take the source of information into consideration. They don't logically step through the characters, events, or happenings. And they don't know how to pick out logical sounding information. But even this doesn't always get you truth.

When you get down to brass tacks, the events in our history are likely to have happened. But what hinged on them, or what lies the governments told their people, what they believed, and the real meaning of those events, are almost always total fabrications or based on one person's narrow view of the situation.

It is no different in the electronic, fast-pased world of the internet. It happens the same and happens faster. People trust some 25 yearold with a fancy webpage over a PHD with a boring read.

They like a video in the vein of that 9/11 conspiracy, and believe obviously false things like that. Over logical arguements that quickly disprove it. (Like the fact that the video even came out)

It isn't going to change. No doesn't it really need to.

There is truth within the lies... It tells you how people feel today. What is important to them.

There is value to the misinformation in the world... more value than what the accurate information would be.

"misinformation" & "undemocratic forces"? I think he means New Labour. Under Conservative rule information would be sensibly taxed and hence restricted to those who can afford it and misinformation would be freely available to all. This present hotch potch of policies is the cause of our nations woes and we must all act swiftly to stem the flow of information by voting Conservative.

I think he's too worried and as people's conciousness expands all over the world and people become more aware, there'll be less need for spam, adverts, lies, misinfortmation and the web will become a truely wonderful next step in the evolution of mankind.

dynaman:

Please take what I'm going to say in the right spirit, I don't have a side as such in this.

It seems to me that what Enay said was his take on it, and that what you said in repsonse was your take on it. However I have to suggest you could take on board the concept that some would not see what he said as being intended to insult, but merely intended to explain what he found so hard to feel could possibly be true.

I'd add that I don't know what he truly intended, but I can at least see those two possibilites.

I think this in itself highlights how misinformation can be spread, whether it's being done intentionally or not. It's surely incipid and subtle at times though.

Anyone could accuse either of you of intentionally mis-informing, but who can know what is absolutely the truth about both of your intentions, and this is a really simple situation by comparison with most.

Harder than it looks, I'm compelled to notice.

don't worry be happy ! ;)

Have to agree with AngelDaniel and JFK. This is purely about information control and it makes all authorities and commercial interests nervous if it is uncontrolled.

The TV is perfect, as corporations etc present you with a limited set of options to choose from.

The web presents you with a much much larger set of options to choose from, from all manner of sources, not just from multimillion dollar/pound business ventures.

Personally, I just prefer maximum freedom of choice in what I read or watch, and never watch the TV.

I guarantee you that cleaning up the internet will not necessarily involve cleaning up "bad things" like spam, especially if governments can find a way to tax it.

Graythe, you were being ironic, right?