69105

Back in the mists of time I was a nurse at the Leicester Frith Hospital in Leicester. Unfortunately my manager at that time was Elaine Moore. Because she was a manager she was the person who would be asked for more resources, different resources, why something happened and why something did not when it clearly should have done. And she would take no discussion about these things when she disagreed. Her favourite phrase was “You are not in possession of all the facts”. The direct implication was that she knew everything and the correct decision had been made. The thing was that she didn’t tell you the facts in a way that you could check - you had to take her at her word. There are only so many times a trite phrase will work and this one was well worn out. She also lied.

I’m sure the US Govt have all the facts (or will say they have) about who shot JFK, how Marilyn Monroe died, Area 51, Diebold, the Florida elections and others. I’m sure the UK and French Govt’s will claim all is revealed about Diana’s crash. And I’m totally sure that whatever the Soviet Govt told it’s people about the West was true. And wikipedia is the sum of all human knowledge so that really must be the truth. Just because you say you have the facts means nothing.

So it’s pretty amazing that the father of the internet is saying that websites should be vetted for their content. Can’t he see that this is impossible? That it will fuel even more conspiracy theories? The “I know this is a fact and it is a fact because I say so” just doesn’t work. It becomes a Big Brother situation. And as soon as you start to say FACT you not only set people directly against that you may also stifle thought. If a site says that something is a fact but they don’t know about some element of what they cover then how can you trust them with the fact? And the person who is checking will agree with their version, their viewpoint.
And once this happens with so-called ‘fact based’ sites how long before politics and commerce really do move in and because they have this apparently good platform which is trusted by some it has a good start.

The Foundation will also look at concerns that the web has become less democratic, and its use influenced too much by large corporations and vested interests.

What are they going to do? Ban Google? And look at ‘less democratic’ - by branding sites they will actually be making it even more less democratic. They will be concentrating what they see as expertise to stifle the alternative view.

They can’t put the cat back in the bag - why do they keep trying?