[Fis] FW: On disinformation. Why disinformation survives

Tue Dec 8 22:42:29 CET 2020

Dear Loet, all,

Yes it is complex - but fascinating, and throws up some fascinating points
about the meaningfulness of categorising "disinformation".

I can't see that it is necessary to distinguish disinformation from
information: this distinction seems at the wrong level of analysis. Echoing
Joe's point that there is a difference between systemic viability
(altruism) and pathology, rather than specific messages being
disinformative or not, can I suggest the following:

1. Disinformation is a meta-systemic categorisation of a systemic pathology;
2. To recognise its own pathology is to recognise a systemic loss of
variety and a reduced capacity to self-organise the communication system in
comparison to the past; This is the "meaningfulness" the metasystem
establishes in its own systemic behaviour;
3. The meaning of disinformation, like all meaning, results from the
construction of a selection mechanism which determines "this is
disinformation". That selection mechanism must be anticipatory, must it
not? And for it to be anticipatory (for it to foresee the pathological
consequences of a pattern of decline in variety), the pattern of its own
historical development (or decline) must enter into the process of
constructing the anticipatory system.

The problem of disinformation then highlights the fact that the
evolutionary history of communication and historical meaning-making is
entailed by all our meaning-making processes: it is not just that meaning
arises from anticipating future events, but anticipating future events in
the light of anticipating the system's capacity to anticipate. I must say
(with apologies to Joe who is no fan of Luhmann!), that Luhmann's late turn
to Spencer-Brown and the embedding of time in distinction-making (see here: The
control of intransparency - Luhmann - 1997 - Systems Research and
Behavioral Science - Wiley Online Library
<https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/%28SICI%291099-1743%28199711/12%2914%3A6%3C359%3A%3AAID-SRES160%3E3.0.CO%3B2-R>)
makes
more sense when we appreciate the meaningfulness of disinformation:

"General systems theory shows that the combination of self‐referential
operations and operational closure (or the re‐entry of output as input)
generates a surplus of possible operations and therefore intransparency of
the system for its own operation. The system cannot produce a complete
description of itself. It has to cope with its own unresolvable
indeterminacy. To be able to operate under such conditions the system has
to introduce time. It has to distinguish between its past and its future.
It has to use a memory function that includes both remembering and
forgetting. And it needs an oscillator function to represent its future.
This means, for example, that the future has to be imagined as achieving or
not achieving the goals of the system."

Best wishes

Mark

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 19:05, Loet Leydesdorff <loet at leydesdorff.net> wrote:

> Dear Mark, Joe, Terry, and other colleagues,
>
> It seems to me that this is complex. The complexity comes to the fore if
> we realize that one needs criteria about what is disinformation and what
> can be considered as information. For example, the criteria will be
> different for Democrats or Republicans in the US.
>
> If we assume with Niklas Luhmann that society is differentiated and also
> differentiating into functional subsystems with different codes in the
> communication, one can expect the different logics to operate upon one
> another and also to confuse, have unintended effects, and irritate one
> another. It is relatively simple as long as "Roma dixit' what is
> communication and what is disinformation. Traditionally, the role hasbeen
> taken over by the law system. But we cannot go to court for each
> miscommunication/dis-information.
>
> Who authorized the social media (Facebook) to take the policing role.
> Which codes are developed and used? Empirical questions. One expects
> self-organization of the communication leading to differentiation to
> prevail, and organization in forms of operational coupling and thus
> irritation.
>
> Things become complex as soon as it is no longer obvious what is
> mis-information and as soon as one is aware that there are no standards
> given. Perhaps, moral standards but these no longer work in a pluriform
> society. "Cuius regio, eius religio" was the principle in 1658 at the Peace
> of Westfalia. But it assumed sovereignty. Nowadays, we have freedom of
> religion and it is difficult to tell someone else that s/he is misinformed.
>
> Best,
> Loet
>
> * <https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030599508>Loet Leydesdorff*
>
> *________________________________*
>
> Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
>
> loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
>
>
> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en
>
> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7835-3098;
>
>
> "The Evolutionary Dynamics of Discursive Knowledge" at
>
> https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030599508
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Mark Johnson" <johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com>
> To: "fis" <fis at listas.unizar.es>
> Sent: 12/8/2020 5:14:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fis] FW: On disinformation. Why disinformation survives
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> Regarding your "objective altruistic criteria" (I quite agree), is this in
> Bob Ulanowicz's and Loet's territory, do you think? Bob - are you there?
>
> Is this a trade-off between autocatalysis and mutual information in
> communication ecosystems? That would provide some kind of metric -
> particularly in the light of Loet's work.
>
> Personally, I would expect distortions in anticipatory systems which might
> be analysable through communication processes. Trump's tweets, and the
> chilling dynamics unfolding around what is obviously a stand-off in
> electoral trust are an excellent test-ground for some practical work.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Mark
>
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 08:37, Joseph Brenner <joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>>
>>
>> Disinformation survives and flourishes in part because supported by
>> statements such as those of Bloom. They are strictly equivalent in form to
>> Trump’s saying that “there are good people on both
>>
>> sides”, when one of those sides is composed of people who kill peaceful
>> protesters.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the United States, despite their uniformly good reaction to the
>> current attacks on the electoral process, the courts will not be able to
>> help in a catastrophically large number of cases in the future. Apart from
>> the ideologue majority in the Supreme Court, the lower courts have been
>> stuffed with young right wing reactionaries who will poison decisions for
>> at least a generation.
>>
>>
>>
>> A new process is required, one that explicitly recognizes the existence
>> of objective altruistic criteria in behavior, where economic or social
>> self-interest can be shown to be absent. I order not to drown in pessimism,
>> I repeat to myself the statement of the biologist E. O. Wilson: “Selfishness
>> beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups.
>> Everything else is commentary.”
>>
>>
>>
>> I like to think that this discussion, in a small way, is part of such a
>> process, since the trans-categorial role of information is crucial.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>>
>>
>> Joseph
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Howard
>> Bloom
>> *Sent:* mardi, 8 décembre 2020 02:39
>> *To:* dai.griffiths.1 at gmail.com; fis at listas.unizar.es
>> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] On disinformation
>>
>>
>>
>> thanks, dai.
>>
>>
>>
>> one man's truth is another man's lie.  each subculture has its own truth
>> and its own devil spilling disinformation.
>>
>>
>>
>> to trumpers, joe biden is part of a coup to take the white house
>> fraudulently. to trumpers, the democrats are the liars.
>>
>>
>>
>> to anti-trumpers, trump is trying to pull off a coup to upend the
>> election.  trump and his "army" are the liars.  the disinformation spewers.
>>
>>
>>
>> which group is right?  which truth is right?
>>
>>
>>
>> how do we judge?  especially if freedom of speech is one of our most
>> basic values?
>>
>>
>>
>> so far, we are relying on the courts.
>>
>>
>>
>> with warmth and oomph--howard
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dai Griffiths <dai.griffiths.1 at gmail.com>
>> To: fis at listas.unizar.es <fis at listas.unizar.es>
>> Sent: Mon, Dec 7, 2020 9:05 am
>> Subject: Re: [Fis] On disinformation
>>
>> That's all true, Howard.
>>
>> I think it is important to distinguish between compliance and consensus.
>> Throwing dissidents to the lions does the trick for compliance, and
>> preventing challenges to power (as per the shocking first chapter of
>> Foucault's Discipline and Punish).
>>
>> As to consensus, the creation of a canon is partly a practical matter:
>> given it takes so long to copy a book, which ones do we think are worth
>> copying and sharing. Printing, and now information technology, have
>> completely changed these decisions. But on top of these features of the
>> medium, there is a political process. For example, it seems likely that
>> leaders in early China saw how consensus through control of the canon
>> could provide an alternative (or a useful addition) to lion feeding as a
>> method for achieving authority, by promoting Confucian ideas. Both
>> strategies are at work in Hong Kong today, it seems.
>>
>> The two strategies continue side by side in differing combinations. Some
>> absolute rulers don't worry too much about consensus outside the group of
>> those standing in line to assassinate them. Others focus more on control of
>> the development of consensus through control of the communications ecology,
>> and perhaps Russia has taken the lead in this. Neither of these two
>> extremes is attractive, but both are widespread. Most of us on this list
>> have been fortunate to live in a democratic space carved out between the
>> rock of forced compliance, and the hard place of manipulated consensus. The
>> configuration and maintenance of that space always involves hard work,
>> compromise, and trade-offs that are never ideal for everybody (and maybe
>> for nobody), but I am certainly grateful for it.
>>
>> If we want to say something sensible about all this, and if we want to
>> make any practical step which might preserve both our discourses and
>> democracy, then I think we need to address two quite different kinds of
>> questions:
>>
>> 1) What is the impact of information technology, its accompanying
>> regulatory framework and established patterns of use, on the ecology of
>> communications? How might the patterns change if we altered this or that
>> part of the system? These are cybernetic questions.
>>
>> 2) Who is benefiting from the emerging communications ecology, what are
>> they doing to shape it's future, and why? What (if any) changes would we
>> like to persuade legislators and organisations to make in response and how
>> can this be achieved? These are political questions.
>>
>> Dai
>>
>> On 06/12/2020 02:16, Howard Bloom wrote:
>>
>> dai,
>>
>>
>>
>> as an indication that your idea that disinformation is the norm and
>> consensus the exception,
>>
>>
>>
>> look how hard previous ages have worked to impose consensus.  spreading
>> roman culture amongst tribal peoples in the days of the roman
>> empire.  throwing dissidents to the lions. making sure that everyone's
>> education was the same with the same roughly five books studied and the
>> same alphabet used from roughly 200 bc onward in china.   hunting heretics
>> once rome turned christian.  the inquisition.  the absolute rule of the
>> tsar in russia, with all printing presses used for just one thing:
>> printing the tsar's ukases.
>>
>>
>>
>> howard
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dai Griffiths <dai.griffiths.1 at gmail.com>
>> <dai.griffiths.1 at gmail.com>
>> To: fis at listas.unizar.es
>> Sent: Sat, Dec 5, 2020 9:41 am
>> Subject: Re: [Fis] On disinformation
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> We tend to think of 'surveillance capitalism' and other related trends as
>> being a disruption of normality. But seen from a longer perspective,
>> perhaps we are living in an unusual period (or the possibly the end of it)
>> in which there has been relatively widespread social agreement about the
>> nature of the world that we are living in. "Ask the priest" used to be the
>> answer to questions of eschatology or social propriety (and often still is)
>> but that doesn't help much in establishing who is giving the orders or why,
>> and what is going on in the town over the hill. We have relied on
>> newspapers for that, and, in the UK, the BBC. As a result, flat earthers
>> haven't much traction recently compared with the conflict between Galileo
>> and the church, and even McCarthyism was primarily about economic power and
>> control, not as unhinged as the witchcraft hysteria that Miller (rightly)
>> compared it to. If it is true that we have been living in an oasis of
>> relative consensus, where did that consensus come from?
>>
>> I would argue that it emerged from the inherent limitations in access to
>> printing technology, and the editorial, commercial, political and social
>> processes that developed to cope with that limited access. It is these
>> processes that generated the authority of some ideas over others, the
>> generalised trust in some media rather than others, and the ability to
>> identify consistent biases in those that were trusted.
>>
>> I suggest that we should recognise that disinformation, fake news, and
>> plain old gossip, are the default state for human social interactions. It
>> is evolved and designed social structures and institutions that overcome
>> this. Our challenge is then to disentangle the way that that informational
>> authority was generated in the past, and the (perhaps disfunctional) way
>> that it is generated at present. My suspicion is that we won't get far in
>> improving the situation unless we question the central role of the
>> recommender algorithms that have taken over much of the work of human
>> editors in determining what is seen heard and read, and by whom. To have
>> any chance of achieving political traction in the face of commercial
>> interests and personal preferences, proposals for change in that area will
>> have to tell and extremely clear story about how we got to where we are,
>> where we should try to go next, and how we could get there.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Dai
>>
>> On 04/12/2020 14:06, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:
>>
>> Dear Terry and FIS colleagues,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the reflections--I will try to continue with rather
>> disconnected ideas.
>>
>>
>>
>> The term 'surveillance capitalism' introduced by Shoshana Zuboff (indeed
>> complemented with a parallel 'surveillance authoritarianism') is  addressed
>> to cover the new negative aspects of current technological developments.
>> However, my opinion is that these phenomena are inherent in all human
>> societies in all epochs, for there is always a tension, say, between the
>> individual "fitness" and the whole social "commons", which can be set in
>> quite many different dynamic equilibrium points, basically maintained via
>> circulating or communicating info flows. It is easy to see that
>> information, disinformation, surveillance, persuasion, and coercion travel
>> together in the socialization-communication pack. Historically, every new
>> means of communication (then we land on McLuhan) alters those social
>> equilibria and somehow demands a social or cultural reaction to
>> re-establish an acceptable collective situation. The problem now, you
>> mentioned in the previous post, is the enormous concentration of power, of
>> brute info flows,  around these new media--without appropriate social
>> curation at the time being. I doubt that these technologies can bring the
>> solution by themselves . Institutional, social intervention would be
>> needed...  Scholarly analysis might be important, providing cues on the the
>> influence on individual and collective moods/personalities, on the possible
>> counteracting institutional alternatives and on the needed new cultural
>> norms to abide along these new forms of communication (sort of 'traffic
>> regulations'), even a personal hygiene of communication...
>>
>>
>>
>> The problems are far more serious, complex, and faster than in McLuhan's
>> time. We have to reinvent his views... But how can we organize a
>> collective, cumulative discussion? I was thinking that a feasible first
>> step, apart of what we can do directly in the list, could be calling for a
>> Special Issue in some interesting, multidisciplinary Journal. Well, at the
>> time being, Terry, Joseph, and myself are promoting a sort of ad hoc group
>> to move things--anyone else would join??
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> --Pedro
>>
>>
>>
>> El 01/12/2020 a las 22:54, Terrence W. DEACON escribió:
>>
>> Dear Pedro,
>>
>>
>>
>> Great suggestions. I like the idea of an ongoing separate thread
>> addressing disinformation.
>>
>> Of course I only addressed Western disinformation and didn't even touch
>> on highly massaged information that is often disseminated with centralized
>> governmental control.
>>
>> This disinforms by selective censorship and redundancy and is
>> increasingly taking advantage of the myriad new forms of surveillance that
>> can be used to shape the information made available to different targeted
>> audiences.
>>
>> And Yes McLuhan is definitely relevant.
>>
>> I wonder how he would think about the effects of these new media.
>>
>> How do they reshape the nature of content?
>>
>> How they can be understood using his notions of hot and cool?
>>
>> What is now in the rear view mirror within the new media that once was in
>> the foreground?
>>
>> On these matters Bob Logan might want to weigh in.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Professor Terrence W. Deacon
>> University of California, Berkeley
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Fis mailing list
>>
>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>>
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>
>> ----------
>>
>> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>>
>>
>>
>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>>
>> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>>
>> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>>
>> http://listas.unizar.es
>>
>> ----------
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Pedro C. Marijuán
>>
>> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
>>
>>
>>
>> pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es
>>
>> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>
>> Libre de virus. www.avast.com
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>
>>
>> <https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/suite#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list
>> Fis at listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>> ---------- INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL Ud.
>> recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la
>> Universidad de Zaragoza. Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como
>> tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace:
>> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
>> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>> http://listas.unizar.es
>>
>> ----------
>>
>> --
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> Professor David (Dai) Griffiths
>>
>>
>>
>> SKYPE: daigriffiths
>>
>>
>>
>> Phones (please don't leave voice mail)
>>
>>    UK Mobile +44 (0)7491151559
>>
>>    Spanish Mobile: + 34 687955912
>>
>>
>>
>> email
>>
>>    dai.griffiths.1 at gmail.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>> ----------
>> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>>
>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada
>> por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
>> siguiente enlace:
>> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
>> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>> http://listas.unizar.es
>> ----------
>>
>> --
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> Professor David (Dai) Griffiths
>>
>>
>>
>> SKYPE: daigriffiths
>>
>>
>>
>> Phones (please don't leave voice mail)
>>
>>    UK Mobile +44 (0)7491151559
>>
>>    Spanish Mobile: + 34 687955912
>>
>>
>>
>> email
>>
>>    dai.griffiths.1 at gmail.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>> ----------
>> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>>
>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada
>> por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
>> siguiente enlace:
>> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
>> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>> http://listas.unizar.es
>> ----------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>> ----------
>> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>>
>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada
>> por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
>> siguiente enlace:
>> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
>> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>> http://listas.unizar.es
>> ----------
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Mark William Johnson
> Institute of Learning and Teaching
> Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
> University of Liverpool
>
> Phone: 07786 064505
> Email: johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com
> Blog: http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com
>
>

-- 
Dr. Mark William Johnson
Institute of Learning and Teaching
Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
University of Liverpool

Phone: 07786 064505
Email: johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com
Blog: http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20201208/a3f822fd/attachment-0001.html>