Paris — When the company “Google Europe” (Google Europe) invited me to Paris for a session of “brainstorming” on the problem of the decline of truth, flourishing fake news and ways to fight and so with others, I began my presentation with, put the issue in historical context.
I quoted an essay by George Orwell’s “Remembering the war in Spain,” in which the author explains that for him, “history stopped in 1936” because it was then — in Spain — he first saw “the messages of Newspapers, not having the truth is irrelevant”. It was there that he felt that the “very concept of objective truth”, destroy fascism in his red and brown forms, “began to wane in the world.” Due to this steel in the future you may people like Joseph Goebbels (“I’m the one who decides who is a Jew and who is not”), and later Donald trump (with his “alternative realities”).
But then I stressed that before and after the heyday of totalitarianism have been several important intellectual upheaval.
First, Kant’s “critique” separated the noumenal from the phenomenal, limiting our knowledge of the past, and postulirovana that we can understand the phenomenon only to the extent that it allows our senses, understanding and reason. This criticism adds to our relationship with truth is a share of subjectivity, the voluntary victims of which can be considered the current ideologues of Breccia.
Second, “perspectivism” Nietzsche turned truth into “the view” and declared “correct” a point of view that makes a creature stronger, and “false” that it upsets or belittles. All this triggered a second intellectual earthquake shocks which, of course, shocked the political system by opening a metaphysical possibility for the emergence of leaders like, for example, Vladimir Putin.
And, thirdly, there was a “deconstruction” post-Nietzscheans. Historysize the “will to truth” (Michel Foucault), the room of truth “in quotation marks” (Jacques Derrida), the separation of the sign from the value (Louis Althusser), the immersion is obvious in the miasma of graphs and tables (Claude Levi-Strauss), or tying in knots Borromeo (Jacques Lacan) — all this, apparently, led to the fact that we have lost touch with simple, solid and irrefutable aspects of the truth.
Then I focused on the responsibility of Internet and GAFA (Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon) for the following sequence of events:
First, the digital democracy released virtually unlimited amounts of speech and expression.
After that, the web has turned into a crowd in freedom for all; it appears each armed with personal opinions, beliefs and truth.
Ultimately — and this change was almost unnoticed amid the deafening roar of tweets, retweets and posts — we demanded that our newly-asserted truth enjoyed the same respect, how to enjoy old truth.
We started with an equal right to Express our views. We came to the recognition that any expressed opinion is of equal value.
We started with that just wanted to be heard, and then demanded that the students began to respect our statements (which they might think of them in reality), and eventually began to warn the audience that you cannot put one statement over another or to assert that there may be a hierarchy of truth.
We thought we democratize “the courage of truth”, which was so dear to the late Foucault. We thought that we give to each other of the truth of the technical means by which to contribute boldly, but humbly, in search of knowledge. Instead, we have created a stream of madness. We put the body of truth on the table and driven by cannibalistic impulses were ready to tear it apart. Each of us sewed a patchwork quilt of absolute certainty and suspicion of a bleeding, rotting scraps. And soon, this performance gave way (no Hellenic elegance) of the depravity of the new generation of sophists who claim that truth is a swaying shadow that man is the measure of all things and that the truth of each is exactly equal to the truth of his neighbor.
Given all this (and because the company “Google Europe” was the organizer of the event), I suggested that Carlo d’asaro Biondo, the President of the company, responsible for partnerships and strategic communications in Europe, Middle East and Africa, three specific and highly strategic ideas.
The first proposal — the creation of the hall of shame, where in partnership with 50, 100 or 200 largest Newspapers in the world will be prepared real-time list of the most dangerous fake news at this particular moment.
Second, the competitions modelled on those that organized the Academy of France in the eighteenth century (due to which there was both “Reasoning” Russo). Denizens of the web will be able to offer a document, video, or other material, whose power of truth or satire will help to neutralize the most harmful of the fake news, and the winner will receive funding for the proposed work.
And finally, after two and a half centuries after Diderot, it would be possible to create a new encyclopedia — Yes, an encyclopedia, a real, completely the opposite of “Wikipedia” with its muddy articles. Who else, if not one of the global technology companies, has the ability (assuming she decides to use it) collect together thousands of real scientists, able to take inventory of the knowledge available to us now in each of the scientific disciplines.
The choice is obvious: “encyclopedia” or ignorance.
To mend the fabric of truth or to accept the final rejection of her.
To dive deeper into the “cave”, a dark and noisy or begin to seek a way out.
I would not want to give undue importance to one event Google. But is it possible to consider it an awakening call, signal the beginning of the process of critical questioning? Can those who are responsible for the worst to show their commitment to responsible behaviour and repair the damage, to rebuild after all the destruction? If not them, then who?
Read more •••