Thread by @xian649

So, the internet is interesting. In fact, still using this term (which has been in general use for some 30+ years) can actually be misleading of what is now possible, today, implying that the technologies & mechanism available for commercial use in the 90s remain the same…

…or essentially unchanged for what we’ve grown accustomed to for the better part of a decade, when in reality, what was possible 30 years ago and how we used “the internet” is very different from how it is used today.

For example, the song below released in 1999. When I’d first heard it on the local radio’s Top 40 hits, I was ~11 yrs old at the time & quickly grew enamored with it as a manifestation of my angst & (fabricated) unreciprocated affections for a classmate.

music.apple.com/us/album/every…

See, whenever I’d encounter the song, it usually wasn’t announced what the title was or who the band was. I never learned the official title nor who sang it, not for several years. There were search engines at the time (and not just Google), but back then, there simply weren’t…

…any formally established websites. Online content was only just emerging, and typically, none of it was mainstream or popular. There were no websites specializing exclusively on cataloguing song lyrics, so there was no way to Google the song by the words I’d memorized.

There was no device nor application available to literally “listen” to the song and provide me its details. None of that existed. At best, my only solution would’ve been to go to Walmart and browse hundreds of CDs (which were packaged in plastic) to try and find the song title.

I’d tried for weeks, listening to the Top 40 hits waiting for the song to come back with my cassette tape waiting in the recorder to try and capture as perfect a recording of the song as I could. Otherwise, there was no way for me to acquire what was my favorite song at the time.

It’s easy to see how that experience is entirely foreign to today’s youth. The presence of the internet and the way we engage with it, today, is nowhere the same as it used to be. We still have and occasionally use browsers, of course, and there are still websites. But today…

…the most widely-used internet capable device for commercial use are mobile devices—largely smartphones and, secondly, tablets (which are basically larger smartphones). These devices also use browsers, but since the emergence of such devices in 2007 with Apple’s original iPhone—

—and later, the App Store (which launched a day prior to the release of Apple’s second iPhone model and made available to users of the first model via software update of the OS), it quickly became the accepted practice and eventual standard for website developers to invest…

…their time and money in the development of native applications designed to run on the iPhone’s OS, providing a more intuitive, as well as natural user experience taking advantage of the devices’ capabilities as opposed to being constrained to inherent browser limitations.

As an app, they could take full advantage of the new MultiTouch, they had more access to the processing capabilities built into the device. All the while, these apps, which were basically refined versions of the websites from which they were based, still utilized the internet…

…and continued to access the developers’ systems and servers used to facilitate the online operation of their websites. After 14 years, we can now predictably anticipate that software companies will usually first go to app development as the primary means of proliferating…

…their product or service, a website being their secondary (and usually “inferior”) option. Instead of the internet being the direct access point and interactive sort of “terminal” for online contact, it now primarily exists merely as a literal network for these devices & apps…

…ironically, paring it down to no more than the essence of what it was initially engineered to be all the way back in the 60s when invented for government/military use. The internet is now in the background, hidden from view, operating from beyond our direct awareness.

All this just to illustrate one way the internet as we once knew it has so fundamentally transformed into something we would never have recognized in the 90s if not for being around at the time and old enough to have witnessed and experienced this transformation for ourselves.

What’s really been striking to me, though, as well as deeply troubling, now that we find ourselves deeply entrenched in this new, burgeoning Digital Era (regardless of how fascinating the journey has been), is how the availability of information—

—particularly as it pertains to its presentation—has likewise morphed uncontrollably into something that no longer can be managed or otherwise moderated in any feasible manner. Before Lycos and Ask Jeeves and Sirius and Yahoo and Google (and sure, I guess even Bing)…

…the primary method of searching for, researching & gathering publicly available information was through a library. You could access records of newspapers, find interviews, the library could request, acquire, then provide research documents, and there were a variety…

…of different Encyclopedias. And the thing about these more archaic methods people essentially no longer use today, is that all of this information was **sourced.** When you found whatever you sought for, you knew where that information originated. There was no method for…

…obscure or otherwise non-notable or misleading information to be planted or otherwise infiltrate these resources, not without at least leaving behind a reliable paper trail revealing where it came from and how it got there. This was all by design mostly because these archaic…

…methods were largely engineered by and for academia where sources must always be cited and referred to whenever being used within that setting. The practice of searching for public information was not a widespread, common practice in those days, so there was major interest…

…in being able to maintain the integrity of whatever information was available to the public. This is why there are style guides and guidelines for how sources are collected and cited in either academic research materials or when cited in the news media of the time…

…(which back then, was available solely in paper form). With the emergence of online search engines and their general ease of use compared to the older, established systems of the time, the ability to find information—however specific or innocuous—exploded into mainstream use.

In the span of only a few years, public interest in the ability to find information became widespread and relevant aspect of everyday life, especially when major news outlets began to transition their content into the online space. “Googling” became its own recognized verb…

…and being able to find news sources by a simple keyword search was far easier and faster than what was capable in an analog format. Juxtaposed to everything else the internet promised, it’s easy to see how it quickly became ingratiated into our homes and schools and businesses—

—in such a short time. But the problem was, given these tools were largely designed outside any formal setting (like academia or the legal system) and intended for use by the general public who, for the most part, had no interest nor experience operating within those settings…

…there was no major, formal incentive to present the available information in any specific way that wasn’t easy to find, understand, or utilize by mainstream culture. Aside from the site address of any given search result, it never became a standard practice within the online…

…landscape to provide the ultimate source for where this information came from. And search engines were typically never designed to prioritize primary sources over the secondary or tertiary. Search for a quote or interview and Google will show you any and all iterations…

…of that data anywhere it can be found online, out of order and with no regard for academic or intellectual value, veracity, or integrity. We can see this most easily in the proliferation of alleged quotes from well-known historical figures or celebrities.

See, the use of a quotation comes with a very specific connotation. A writer could say those words without framing them as a quote if the merits of the words, themselves, warranted inclusion in any given setting. However, we employ quotations for chiefly two reasons—

1) The statement in question did not initially originate from whomever is writing the paper or article and it’s inclusion without proper attribution constitutes plagiarism;

2) the inclusion & merit of the statement is deemed as relevant largely for the reputation of who said it.

In the first case, even in the Digital Era, quotations remain properly sourced and cited, so it’s not common to encounter difficulty hunting down the original source of such statements and confirming their attribution. It is the second case where things get troublesome…

…particularly in online spaces where millions of users each day vie for social clout via any means necessary. Maybe the statement has merit on its own or means something valuable—the statement is, on its own, worth proliferation. But framing it as a quote—even anonymously…

…suggests a certain quality of conventional wisdom: “this is a well-known thing people say and understand,” as opposed to being just some original idea the writer happened to conjure of their own wit and experience.

This is a form of manipulation where contrived or fabricated statements are not only coercively framed, but also intentionally, falsely attributed to major figures in order to effectively “legitimize” in the eyes of online users that this statement—regardless of its merit—

—is beyond reproach & scrutiny: “because this really smart or famous person said it.”

Consider the Socrates quote, below. The thing about Socrates is there exists no historical record of anything he actually ever said, directly. What we know of his work & statements comes from…

…secondary sources: the historical philosophical figures who came after, usually having been trained by him, directly, as his students. We have records of those secondary sources, so as far as what has been preserved of what it is said he once said, those records are documented.

But when you research the above statement, the **only** content you find is people resharing it in a persistent, recursive feedback loop. There is no actual record of where that statement actually comes from, let alone reference to any of those well-documented secondary sources.

The Plato quote (below) is similarly questionable. In both examples, the language used refers to words or concepts that simply did not exist nor were in any form in usage during those time periods (like “empathy” or “stupid”), and there’s simply no way for the ancient language…

…used in that time to translate to such blatantly modern-day ideas. Thankfully, when we search the above statement, there remains a single online, digital record of a 2006 high school commencement speech by school administrator Bill Bullard, cited on a random, obscure blog.

(Though the hyperlink citing the source of the PDF copy of the speech from where this quote actually originates is long dead, it does refer back to the official website of the San Francisco high school where Bullard worked, the original text of the PDF copied in the blog)

Now, why not properly attribute it to Bullard? Why reference Socrates at all?

Because one man is historically world renowned as a major political and philosophical thinker, widely referenced in a variety of schools of thought still relevant to this day.

The other is simply a modern man who worked in education.

Socrates bolsters the appeal of the statement *far* beyond the objective value or merit of the statement’s original context.

When these misattributions are observed, usually the response is, “well, it’s still accurate”…

…but that is besides the point. The people who do this are deliberately lying and manipulating people. The statement may be accurate or valuable, but that is undercut by the statement’s proliferation hingeing on compromising the digital, historical record.

In another 20 years, it’s possible that if such trends continue, it may very well be impossible to hunt down where such statements actually originated. And given our records of history, academia, and science are largely going digital, this poses a significant problem.

Especially regarding information predating the internet or having been largely proliferated in its early days, it can be exceedingly difficult determining the veracity of such claims or sources especially shared by word-of-mouth or from mostly disreputable, unreliable…

…sources that never cared to even consider leaving behind any tangible, meaningful “paper” trail. This has been a feature of the online experience ever since the internet became a common, household service. “Urban myth” has taken on new form, in the Information Age…

…where people share these bits of information with each other, initially through mass email chains and these days, on massive social media platforms (namely the Big 3—Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter). And the way this information is presented and shared flies in the face of…

…what was once standard, expected, and common practice during the Analog Era.

If among even legitimate sources there exists a profound and irreconcilable discrepancy or contradiction on the meaning & sources of certain information, then the historical record can’t be trusted.

All of that to establish the reason my immediate impulse upon seeing images like the one, below, is to embrace my inborn skepticism.

The sentiment expressed above is nuanced and heartfelt—I don’t feel that’s in question at all. But what bothers me is the inability to gain any further insight as to the context this statement was initially made and understanding how Williams (or whomever originated it)…

…came about this idea and the continuity of the discussion leading up to this moment. And keeping in mind everything I’ve demonstrated previously throughout this essay, it also bothers me, the notion that some unknown individual has decided to put words in the mouth of someone…

…more than capable of speaking for themselves.

I’ve just spent 3 hours googling extensively to find any leads out there pointing to the original source of Williams’s alleged sentiments. Virtually every result, every source, even those published by reputable outlets…

…used exactly similar phrasing: “Robin Williams once said…” Below are results for this phrase & “the saddest people” where you’ll see the ubiquity of this phrasing & without any direct confirmation or any actual evidence Williams’s ever said this.

google.com/search?q=%22ro…

1 of 2 things I was able to find—the history for a meme originating in Nov. 2012 expressing a very similar sentiment with strikingly familiar language; in the span of less than a year it went viral a total of 3 times on 3 separate social networks.

knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-lone…

I don’t find it all that difficult to imagine someone taking the above meme and paraphrasing it into the Williams quote we’re presently investigating. And as previously observed, framing stuff like this is intentionally coercive and in this case, emotionally manipulative.

But more than that, considering I can’t find a reference to Williams having ever said this until generally 2 years after his death, it’s proliferation having exploded exponentially, I find it utterly disgusting—it’s media clout propagating off of personal tragedy.

I vaguely recall finding a single reference in 2015 but haven’t been able to pull it up again; otherwise, given the 2nd item I’ve found investigating the source of this quote, I feel that disgust is justified. Whomever is responsible, in putting these words in Williams’s mouth…

…the manipulation, here, means to play off the whole “see, the signs were there, woe, his poor, tortured spirit.” It’s begging us to pity him in his sadness when what we know regarding his death was that it wasn’t even the result of mere “sadness” or even clinical depression.

He suffered from a debilitating condition that, among other things, caused severe dementia and delusions. This didn’t happen due to a lifetime of torturous sadness. And trading off our pity, to me, is to sully the profound legacy he left behind.

So, the 2nd find is an excerpt from a letter sent to @willdarbyshire by “J” as part of a social project started in 2014 (possibly prior to Williams’s death), later published in a collection (“This Modern Love”) included below. This excerpt provides a lead-up to as well as…

…a follow up from the verbatim Williams quote that otherwise maintains a consistent progression & evolution of ideas, suggesting an unlikelihood the quote we’re investigating, if coming from Williams beforehand, was somehow incorporated mid-thought into an overall sentiment…

…which Williams’s quote wouldn’t (and feasibly shouldn’t) fit organically. There’s context for the mention of “the saddest people” juxtaposed to their endeavor to provide happiness to others and further context for the mention of feeling worthless.

It’s the specificity.

I only even found this letter buried in a multitude of Williams-related content as part of a preview from Google Books (got the full excerpt from @Scribd). The reference to “This Modern Love” appeared only **once** in the search of the full quote.

As far as I‘ve seen, there are references to Williams prior to the publishing of the book. That said, I am aware some content later included in the book was shared online prior to its publishing, but could neither confirm nor deny if “J’s” letter was among that content…

…as well as Darbyshire has an active YouTube channel with hundreds of thousands of followers, where there may be a possibility of that letter having been shared in a video (I am uncertain how I might check that short of watching every upload over a 2-3 year period), as well as…

…several well-known social media accounts across numerous, major platforms.

So not only are we dealing with emotional manipulation and coercion and putting words in the mouths of others whilst trading off personal, human tragedy, but we’re also looking at potential plagiarism.

None of which can be waved away by the merits of the words, alone.

And all this, achieved with ease, virtually zero effort, and malicious intent, all facilitated by the tools provided us by the internet as it presently exists.

Just look at the effort I put into this, someone with actual history and experience in genuine research.

When stuff like this happens, when intentional disinformation comes across our feeds and timelines, and people say we’d all be just hunky-dory if we’d only “do our own research,” they have no idea what that actually entails to arrive at any meritorious result or conclusion.

And even after all my effort, there’s nothing definitive. At best, I was only able to confirm my skepticism is well-founded.

I didn’t do this because I somehow disagree with the quote or don’t find Williams capable of saying something like this. I did it because I *want* it…

…to be true, I want him to have actually said this. But I know how this works, I know how people are, that given the tools and the anonymity, they’ll fleece and grift you at any and every opportunity. And I don’t like being manipulated, I don’t like being made to pity an icon.

And I hate being made to feel all of that just because someone wants likes and clicks.

Just imagine this dynamic at play when it comes to politics, or public health concerns (COVID). This is serious shit, and I only used benign examples to emphasize how pervasive this is.

We have to do something. It’ll be extensive work, it’ll require an intensive investment of energy over a protracted period of time.

We have to do this if our society and systems of social organization are to survive another century.

There is no other choice, here.

This is it.

Okay, so I figured out what’s happening—this is likely the largest thread I’ve written, yet, and I think, basically, Twitter can’t handle it. If you were reading this thread starting from the very top, Twitter will straight-up skip the tweet quoted below and not even show it.

https://twitter.com/xian649/status/1438720170604867595

Not knowing this was problem, I went ahead and rewrote (and expanded) the content covering the tweet quoted above. That thread can be found, quoted below:

https://twitter.com/xian649/status/1438774076877774851