intentBlog:

Asymmetric Threat from Internet Truth Predictor Software to Politicians

Dear ATCA Colleagues; dear IntentBloggers

[Please note that the views presented by individual contributors are not necessarily representative of the views of ATCA, which is neutral. ATCA conducts collective Socratic dialogue on global opportunities and threats.]

Re: Beyond Television & Sound Bites -- The Asymmetric Threat from Internet based Truth Predictor Software to Politicians -- Eric Schmidt, CEO, Google

Imagine being able to check instantly whether or not statements made by politicians are correct. That is the sort of service Google's Eric Schmidt believes the Internet will offer in less than five years. The Chairman and Chief Executive of the world's most popular Internet search engine was speaking during a visit to Britain this week, where he met Prime Minister Tony Blair and spoke at the Conservative Party's annual conference.

Do politicians really get the Internet? Schmidt doesn't think so. Whilst they understand the power of television, politicians have yet to appreciate the impact of the online world, which will also affect the outcome of elections, Schmidt has said. Although they understand that it is an important vehicle for getting the message out and mobilizing voters, he believes that's where it ends. "Many of the politicians don't actually understand the phenomenon of the Internet very well," Schmidt has said. "It's partly because of their age ... often what they learn about the Internet they learn from their staffs and their children." The advent of television taught political leaders the art of the sound bite. The Internet will also force them to adapt dramatically.

Google's CEO sees the Internet as an important tool in empowering voters by giving them unprecedented power to check up on politicians. Schmidt predicted that "truth predictor" software would, within five years, "hold politicians to account." People would be able to use programmes to check seemingly factual statements against historical data to see if they were correct. "One of my messages to them [politicians] is to think about having every one of your voters online all the time, then inputting 'is this true or false.' We (at Google) are not in charge of truth but we might be able to give a probability."

"The Internet has largely filled a role of funding for politicians ... but it has not yet affected elections. It clearly will," Schmidt said. The Google boss said the online world has empowered ordinary people with the ability to challenge governments, the media and business. "It has broken down the barriers that exist between people and information, effectively democratising access to human knowledge," Schmidt states. "This has made us much more powerful as individuals."

Having wireless fact-checking hardware at a press conference buzzing loudly when a politician starts being overly critical of his/her opponent or is cutting loose with the hyperbole sounds far fetched. However, it would definitely cause politicians to be more careful about what they say. And would it also make a real difference?

The Internet already plays a role in politics. Anyone wanting to do some fact-checking on what a politician says or has said need only head to his or her favourite search engine or to sites like FactCheck.org. Late last year, the Center for the Digital Future at the University of Southern California (USC) released a study focused on the Internet and politics. Almost 40 percent of the respondents felt that the Internet provided them with more influence in the political arena. 61.7 percent believed that the Internet is a big part of campaigns. Jeffery I Cole, Director of the USC Annenberg School, Center for the Digital Future, noted that the Internet "can be used just as easily for responsible campaigning or as a platform for political mischief and miscommunication." That is the case today, and there are also a large number of blogs and other sites devoted to tracking political utterances and pointing out mistakes and outright lies - usually those uttered by members of another party.

The larger issue is the degree to which the electorate really cares about facts. Sometimes the truth is unpleasant and makes us uncomfortable, and voters don't want to be reminded of it. Instead, they would rather hear half-truths, spin, and grand visions for how things could be one day if they just voted for Candidate X. When the true Parliament is the entire electorate, "truth predictors" may or may not be much help to anyone! What do you think?

[ENDS]

We look forward to your further thoughts, observations and views. Thank you.

Best wishes

For and on behalf of DK Matai, Chairman, Asymmetric Threats Contingency Alliance (ATCA)