Jeg har nu været journalist siden jeg var cirka 17, og det er en interessant industri for tiden, fordi som I alle ved, er der en stor omvæltning i medierne, og de fleste af jer ved dette sikkert fra et virksomhedsmæssigt synspunkt, hvilket er at forretningsmodellen er temmelig ødelagt , og som min bedstefar ville sige, er al profitten blevet slugt af Google.
I've been a journalist now since I was about 17, and it's an interesting industry to be in at the moment, because as you all know, there's a huge amount of upheaval going on in media, and most of you probably know this from the business angle, which is that the business model is pretty screwed, and as my grandfather would say, the profits have all been gobbled up by Google.
Så det er en virkelig interessant tid at være journalist i, men den omvæltning som jeg er interesseret i, er ikke på output siden. Det er på input siden. Det er betænkelighed over hvordan vi får information og hvordan vi indsamler nyhederne. Og det har ændret sig, fordi vi har haft et kæmpe skift i magtbalancen fra nyhedsorganisationerne til publikummet. Og publikummet var i virkelig lang tid i en position hvor de ikke havde nogen måde at påvirke nyhederne på eller lave nogen forandringer. De kunne ikke rigtig samle sig. Og det har ændret sig uigenkaldeligt.
So it's a really interesting time to be a journalist, but the upheaval that I'm interested in is not on the output side. It's on the input side. It's concern with how we get information and how we gather the news. And that's changed, because we've had a huge shift in the balance of power from the news organizations to the audience. And the audience for such a long time was in a position where they didn't have any way of affecting news or making any change. They couldn't really connect. And that's changed irrevocably.
Min første forbindelse med nyhedsmedierne var i 1984, da BBC have en en-dags strejke. Jeg var ikke glad. Jeg var sur. Jeg kunne ikke se mine tegneserier. Så jeg skrev et brev. Og det er en meget effektiv måde at afslutte ens hade mail: "Knus Markham, alder 4." Det virker stadig. Jeg er ikke sikker på at jeg havde nogen indflydelse på en-dags strejken, men det jeg ved er, at det tog dem tre uger at skrive tilbage til mig. Og det var rundturen. Det tog så lang tid for hvem som helst, at have nogen indflydelse og få noget feedback. Og det har ændret sig nu fordi, som journalister, interagerer vi i real time. Vi er ikke i en position hvor publikummet reagerer på nyhederne. Vi reagerer på publikummet, og vi er faktisk afhængige af dem. De hjælper os med at finde nyhederne. De hjælper os med at finde ud af hvad der er den bedste indgangsvinkel og hvad det er de gerne vil høre. Så det er en real time ting. Det er meget hurtigere. Det sker på konstant basis, og journalisterne halser altid efter.
My first connection with the news media was in 1984, the BBC had a one-day strike. I wasn't happy. I was angry. I couldn't see my cartoons. So I wrote a letter. And it's a very effective way of ending your hate mail: "Love Markham, Aged 4." Still works. I'm not sure if I had any impact on the one-day strike, but what I do know is that it took them three weeks to get back to me. And that was the round journey. It took that long for anyone to have any impact and get some feedback. And that's changed now because, as journalists, we interact in real time. We're not in a position where the audience is reacting to news. We're reacting to the audience, and we're actually relying on them. They're helping us find the news. They're helping us figure out what is the best angle to take and what is the stuff that they want to hear. So it's a real-time thing. It's much quicker. It's happening on a constant basis, and the journalist is always playing catch up.
For at give et eksempel på hvordan vi er afhængige af publikummet, den femte september blev Costa Rica ramt af et jordskælv. Det var en 7.6 på Richterskalaen. Det var temmelig stort. Og 60 sekunder er den tid det tog for den at tilbagelægge de 250 kilometer til Managua. Så jorden skælvede i Managua 60 sekunder efter den ramte epicenteret. Tredive sekunder senere, kom den første besked på Twitter, og det var en person der sagde "temblor", hvilket betyder jordskælv. Så 60 sekunder var den tid det tog for det fysiske jordskælv at rejse. Tredive sekunder senere havde nyheden om det jordskælv rejst jorden rundt, øjeblikkeligt. Alle i verden, hypotetisk set, havde potentialet til at vide at et jordskælv havde ramt Managua. Og det skete fordi denne ene person havde et dokumenterende instinkt, hvilket var at slå en status opdatering op, hvilket er det vi alle gør nu, så hvis der sker noget, opdaterer vi vores status, eller vi slår et billede op, vi slår et filmklip op, og det forsvinder alt sammen op i skyen i en konstant strøm.
To give an example of how we rely on the audience, on the 5th of September in Costa Rica, an earthquake hit. It was a 7.6 magnitude. It was fairly big. And 60 seconds is the amount of time it took for it to travel 250 kilometers to Managua. So the ground shook in Managua 60 seconds after it hit the epicenter. Thirty seconds later, the first message went onto Twitter, and this was someone saying "temblor," which means earthquake. So 60 seconds was how long it took for the physical earthquake to travel. Thirty seconds later news of that earthquake had traveled all around the world, instantly. Everyone in the world, hypothetically, had the potential to know that an earthquake was happening in Managua. And that happened because this one person had a documentary instinct, which was to post a status update, which is what we all do now, so if something happens, we put our status update, or we post a photo, we post a video, and it all goes up into the cloud in a constant stream.
Og det det betyder er, at der konstant forsvinder store mængder data op. Det er faktisk rystende. Når man ser på talene, hvert minut er der 72 timers filmklip mere på YouTube. Så det er, hvert sekund, mere end en times video der bliver uploadet. Og med billeder, Instagram, bliver der uploadet 58 billeder til Instagram hvert sekund. Mere end tre og et halvt tusinde billeder bliver uploadet til Facebook. Så til den tid jeg er færdig med at tale her, er der 864 timers video ekstra på YouTube, i forhold til da jeg startede og to og et halvt millioner flere billeder på Facebook og Instagram end da jeg startede.
And what that means is just constant, huge volumes of data going up. It's actually staggering. When you look at the numbers, every minute there are 72 more hours of video on YouTube. So that's, every second, more than an hour of video gets uploaded. And in photos, Instagram, 58 photos are uploaded to Instagram a second. More than three and a half thousand photos go up onto Facebook. So by the time I'm finished talking here, there'll be 864 more hours of video on Youtube than there were when I started, and two and a half million more photos on Facebook and Instagram than when I started.
Så det er en interessant position at være i som journalist, fordi vi burde have adgang til alt. Enhver begivenhed der sker hvor som helst i verden, bør jeg kende til mere eller mindre med det samme, i det det sker, gratis. Og det gælder for hver enkelt person i dette lokale.
So it's an interesting position to be in as a journalist, because we should have access to everything. Any event that happens anywhere in the world, I should be able to know about it pretty much instantaneously, as it happens, for free. And that goes for every single person in this room.
Det eneste problem er, at når man har så meget information, skal man finde de gode ting, og det kan være utrolig svært når man håndterer denne mængde. Og det blev vist mest tydeligt under Orkanen Sandy. Så Orkan Sandy var en superstorm, hvis lige vi ikke havde set i lang tid, der ramte iPhone hovedstaden i universet -- (Latter) -- og en mængde medier som aldrig nogensinde er set før. Og det betød at journalister skulle håndtere falske kopier, så vi skulle håndtere gamle billeder der blev gensendt. Vi skulle håndtere sammensatte billeder der var sammensatte billeder fra tidligere storme. Vi skulle håndtere billeder fra film som "The Day After Tomorrow." (Latter) Og vi skulle håndtere billeder der var så realistiske at det næsten var svært at se om de overhovedet var virkelige. (Latter)
The only problem is, when you have that much information, you have to find the good stuff, and that can be incredibly difficult when you're dealing with those volumes. And nowhere was this brought home more than during Hurricane Sandy. So what you had in Hurricane Sandy was a superstorm, the likes of which we hadn't seen for a long time, hitting the iPhone capital of the universe -- (Laughter) -- and you got volumes of media like we'd never seen before. And that meant that journalists had to deal with fakes, so we had to deal with old photos that were being reposted. We had to deal with composite images that were merging photos from previous storms. We had to deal with images from films like "The Day After Tomorrow." (Laughter) And we had to deal with images that were so realistic it was nearly difficult to tell if they were real at all. (Laughter)
Men spøg til side, der var billeder som dette fra Instagram der blev ristet af en journalist De var ikke helt sikre. Det var filtreret i Instagram. Der blev sået tvivl om lynet. Der blev sået tvivl om det hele. Og det viste sig at være rigtigt. Det var fra Avenue C i downtown Manhattan, der var oversvømmet. Og grunden til de kunne se at det var ægte var fordi de kunne snakke med kilden, og i dette tilfælde, var disse fyre mad bloggere fra New York. De var velrenommerede. De var kendte. Så dette var ikke en afsløring, det var noget de faktisk kunne bevise. Og det var journalistens arbejde. Det var at filtrere alle disse ting. Og man var, i stedet for at gå ud og finde informationen og tage det med tilbage til læseren, holdte man de ting tilbage der potentielt var skadelige.
But joking aside, there were images like this one from Instagram which was subjected to a grilling by journalists. They weren't really sure. It was filtered in Instagram. The lighting was questioned. Everything was questioned about it. And it turned out to be true. It was from Avenue C in downtown Manhattan, which was flooded. And the reason that they could tell that it was real was because they could get to the source, and in this case, these guys were New York food bloggers. They were well respected. They were known. So this one wasn't a debunk, it was actually something that they could prove. And that was the job of the journalist. It was filtering all this stuff. And you were, instead of going and finding the information and bringing it back to the reader, you were holding back the stuff that was potentially damaging.
Og at finde kilden bliver mere og mere vigtigt -- at finde den gode kilde -- og Twitter er det sted de fleste journalister nu går hen. Det er ligesom de facto real time nyhedstjeneste, hvis man ved hvordan man skal bruge den, fordi der er så meget på Twitter.
And finding the source becomes more and more important -- finding the good source -- and Twitter is where most journalists now go. It's like the de facto real-time newswire, if you know how to use it, because there is so much on Twitter.
Og et godt eksempel på hvor brugbart det kan være men også hvor svært det kan være, er den ægyptiske revolution i 2011. Som en ikke-arabisk taler, som en der betragtede det udefra, fra Dublin, Twitter lister, og lister på gode kilder, mennesker som vi kunne etablere som troværdige, var virkelig vigtige. Og hvordan bygger man sådan en liste helt forfra? Jamen, det kan være ret svært, men man skal vide hvad man skal kigge efter. Denne visualisering blev gjort af en italiensk akademiker. Han hedder André Pannison, og han tog dybest set Twitter samtalen på Tahrirpladsen den dag som Hosni Mubarak i sidste ende trådte tilbage, og prikkerne man kan se er retweets, så når nogen retweeter en besked, kommer der en forbindelse mellem to prikker, og jo flere gange en besked bliver retweetet af andre mennesker, jo mere kommer man til se disse knudepunkter, disse forbindelser blive lavet. Og det er en utrolig måde at visualisere en samtale på, men det man får er disse mod det der er mere interessant og hvem der er værd at undersøge nærmere. Og i takt med at samtalen voksede og voksede, blev det mere og mere levende, og til slut blev man efterladt med denne kæmpe, store, rytmiske Man kunne dog finde knudepunkter, dog, og så sagde man, og man siger, "Okay, jeg skal undersøge disse personer nærmere. Dette er dem der tydeligvis giver mening. Lad os se hvem de er."
And a good example of how useful it can be but also how difficult was the Egyptian revolution in 2011. As a non-Arabic speaker, as someone who was looking from the outside, from Dublin, Twitter lists, and lists of good sources, people we could establish were credible, were really important. And how do you build a list like that from scratch? Well, it can be quite difficult, but you have to know what to look for. This visualization was done by an Italian academic. He's called André Pannison, and he basically took the Twitter conversation in Tahrir Square on the day that Hosni Mubarak would eventually resign, and the dots you can see are retweets, so when someone retweets a message, a connection is made between two dots, and the more times that message is retweeted by other people, the more you get to see these nodes, these connections being made. And it's an amazing way of visualizing the conversation, but what you get is hints at who is more interesting and who is worth investigating. And as the conversation grew and grew, it became more and more lively, and eventually you were left with this huge, big, rhythmic pointer of this conversation. You could find the nodes, though, and then you went, and you go, "Right, I've got to investigate these people. These are the ones that are obviously making sense. Let's see who they are."
I syndfloden af information, er dette hvor real time nettet bliver virkelig interessant for en journalist som mig, fordi vi har flere værktøjer end nogensinde før til at lave denne slags efterforskning. Og når man begynder at grave efter kilder, kan man gå længere og længere end man nogensinde kunne før.
Now in the deluge of information, this is where the real-time web gets really interesting for a journalist like myself, because we have more tools than ever to do that kind of investigation. And when you start digging into the sources, you can go further and further than you ever could before.
Nogle gange kommer man forbi et stykke indhold der er så fængslende, man vil bruge det, man er syg efter at bruge det, men man er ikke 100 procent sikker på at man kan det fordi man ikke ved om kilden er troværdig. Man ved ikke om det er skrot. Man ved ikke om det er en genupload. Og man skal gøre det undersøgende arbejde. Og dette filmklip, som jeg vil lade køre, var en vi opdagede for et par uger siden.
Sometimes you come across a piece of content that is so compelling, you want to use it, you're dying to use it, but you're not 100 percent sure if you can because you don't know if the source is credible. You don't know if it's a scrape. You don't know if it's a re-upload. And you have to do that investigative work. And this video, which I'm going to let run through, was one we discovered a couple of weeks ago.
Video: Der begynder virkelig at blæse om et øjeblik.
Video: Getting real windy in just a second.
(Regn og vind lyde)
(Rain and wind sounds)
(Eksplosion) Oh, shit!
(Explosion) Oh, shit!
Markham Nolan: Okay, så hvis man nu er nyheds producent, er dette noget man ville elske at vise, fordi dette er tydeligvis guld. I ved? Dette er en fantastisk reaktion fra en person, et meget ægte filmklip som de har filmet i deres baghave. Men hvordan finder man denne person, hvis det er sandt, hvis det er falsk, eller hvis det er noget der er gammelt og gensendt?
Markham Nolan: Okay, so now if you're a news producer, this is something you'd love to run with, because obviously, this is gold. You know? This is a fantastic reaction from someone, very genuine video that they've shot in their back garden. But how do you find if this person, if it's true, if it's faked, or if it's something that's old and that's been reposted?
Så vi begyndte at arbejde på denne video, og den eneste ting som vi kunne gå efter var brugernavnet på YouTube kontoen. Der var kun postet et filmklip på den konto, og brugernavnet var Rita Krill. Og vi viste ikke om Rita eksisterede eller om det var et falsk navn. Men vi begyndte at kigge, og vi brugte gratis internet værktøjer til det. Det første hed Spokeo, hvilket tillod os at søge efter Rita Kriller. Så vi kiggede i hele USA. Vi fandt dem i New York, vi fandt dem i Pennsylvania, Nevada og Florida. Så vi tog ud og kiggede på et andet gratis internet værktøj der hedder Wolfram Alpha, og vi kiggede på vejr journaler for den dag hvor denne video var blevet uploadet, og vi kiggede alle de forskellige byer igennem, og vi så at i Florida, var der uvejr og regn den dag. Så vi kiggede på de hvide sider, og vi fandt, vi kiggede på alle Rita Krill i telefonbøgerne, og vi kiggede på et par forskellige adresser, og det førte os til Google Maps, hvor vi fandt et hus. Og vi fandt et hus med en svømmepøl der så bemærkelsesværdigt ud som Ritas. Så vi kiggede på filmklippet igen og vi kiggede efter tegn som vi kunne krydshenvise til. Så hvis man kigger på filmklippet, er der en stor paraply, der er en hvid luftmadras i poolen, der er nogle utrolig runde kanter i svømmepølen, og der er to træet i baggrunden. Og vi kiggede på Google Maps, og vi kiggede lidt nærmere, og bestemt, der er den hvide luftmadras, der er de to træer, der er paraplyen. Den er faktisk foldet sammen på dette billede. Et lille trick. Og der er de afrundede kanter i svømmepølen. Så vi var i stand til at ringe til Rita, godkende videoen, være sikker på at den var blevet optaget, og så var vores klienter glade, fordi de var i stand til at vise den uden at være bekymrede.
So we set about going to work on this video, and the only thing that we had to go on was the username on the YouTube account. There was only one video posted to that account, and the username was Rita Krill. And we didn't know if Rita existed or if it was a fake name. But we started looking, and we used free Internet tools to do so. The first one was called Spokeo, which allowed us to look for Rita Krills. So we looked all over the U.S. We found them in New York, we found them in Pennsylvania, Nevada and Florida. So we went and we looked for a second free Internet tool called Wolfram Alpha, and we checked the weather reports for the day in which this video had been uploaded, and when we went through all those various cities, we found that in Florida, there were thunderstorms and rain on the day. So we went to the white pages, and we found, we looked through the Rita Krills in the phonebook, and we looked through a couple of different addresses, and that took us to Google Maps, where we found a house. And we found a house with a swimming pool that looked remarkably like Rita's. So we went back to the video, and we had to look for clues that we could cross-reference. So if you look in the video, there's the big umbrella, there's a white lilo in the pool, there are some unusually rounded edges in the swimming pool, and there's two trees in the background. And we went back to Google Maps, and we looked a little bit closer, and sure enough, there's the white lilo, there are the two trees, there's the umbrella. It's actually folded in this photo. Little bit of trickery. And there are the rounded edges on the swimming pool. So we were able to call Rita, clear the video, make sure that it had been shot, and then our clients were delighted because they were able to run it without being worried.
Nogle gange er søgen efter sandheden, dog, lidt mindre overfladiske, og det har meget større konsekvenser. Syrien har været virkelig interessant for os, fordi man tydeligvis meget af tiden prøver at afsløre ting der potentielt kan være beviser på krigsforbrydelser, så dette er hvor YouTube faktisk bliver det vigtigste skatkammer af information om hvad der sker i verden.
Sometimes the search for truth, though, is a little bit less flippant, and it has much greater consequences. Syria has been really interesting for us, because obviously a lot of the time you're trying to debunk stuff that can be potentially war crime evidence, so this is where YouTube actually becomes the most important repository of information about what's going on in the world.
Så dette filmklip, jeg vil ikke vise jer hele klippet, fordi det er temmelig grusomt, men I kommer til at høre nogen af lydene. Dette er fra Hama. Video: (Råben) Og det dette filmklip viser, hvis man ser det hele, er blodige kroppe der bliver taget ud af en pickup og smidt ud fra en bro. Beskyldningerne var at disse fyre var fra Muslim Brotherhood og at de smed kroppe af officerer fra den syriske hær ud fra broen, og at de bandede og brugte blasfemisk sprog, og der var mange modbeskyldninger om hvem de var, og om de var eller ikke var det filmklippet sagde det var.
So this video, I'm not going to show you the whole thing, because it's quite gruesome, but you'll hear some of the sounds. This is from Hama. Video: (Shouting) And what this video shows, when you watch the whole thing through, is bloody bodies being taken out of a pickup truck and thrown off a bridge. The allegations were that these guys were Muslim Brotherhood and they were throwing Syrian Army officers' bodies off the bridge, and they were cursing and using blasphemous language, and there were lots of counterclaims about who they were, and whether or not they were what the video said it was.
Så vi talte med nogle kilder i Hama der havde været frem og tilbage på Twitter, og vi spurgte dem om dette, og broen var interessant for os, fordi det var noget vi kunne identificere. Tre forskellige kilder sagde tre forskellige ting om broen. De sagde, en, at broen ikke eksisterede. En anden sagde at broen eksisterede, men den er ikke i Hama. Den er et andet sted. Og den tredje sagde, "Jeg mener broen eksisterer, men dæmningen op ad floden fra broen var lukket, så floden burde være tørret ud, så dette giver ikke nogen mening." Så det var den eneste der gav os en ledetråd. Vi kiggede filmklippet igennem for andre ledetråde. Vi så særpræget gelænder som vi kunne bruge. Vi kiggede på kantstenen. Kantstenen kastede en skygge mod syd, så vi kunne regne ud at broen havde en øst-vestlig retning hen over floden. Den havde sorte og hvide kantsten. I takt med at vi kiggede på selve foden, kunne man se at der var en betonklods på vestsiden. Der er en sky af blod. Der er blod i floden. Så floden flyder fra syd til nord. Det er hvad det fortæller mig. Derudover, når man kigger væk fra broen, er der græstørv på den venstre side af flodbredden, og floden snævrer ind.
So we talked to some sources in Hama who we had been back and forth with on Twitter, and we asked them about this, and the bridge was interesting to us because it was something we could identify. Three different sources said three different things about the bridge. They said, one, the bridge doesn't exist. Another one said the bridge does exist, but it's not in Hama. It's somewhere else. And the third one said, "I think the bridge does exist, but the dam upstream of the bridge was closed, so the river should actually have been dry, so this doesn't make sense." So that was the only one that gave us a clue. We looked through the video for other clues. We saw the distinctive railings, which we could use. We looked at the curbs. The curbs were throwing shadows south, so we could tell the bridge was running east-west across the river. It had black-and-white curbs. As we looked at the river itself, you could see there's a concrete stone on the west side. There's a cloud of blood. That's blood in the river. So the river is flowing south to north. That's what that tells me. And also, as you look away from the bridge, there's a divot on the left-hand side of the bank, and the river narrows.
Så vi gik på Google Maps, og vi begyndte at gennemse bogstavelig talt hver eneste bro. Vi fandt dæmningen vi snakkede om, vi kiggede bogstavelig talt på alle de gange vejen krydsede floden, og overstregede de broer der ikke matchede. Vi ledte efter en der krydsede den øst-vestlig. Og vi kom til Hama. Vi kommer hele vejen fra dæmningen til Hama og der er ikke nogen bro. Så vi går lidt videre. Vi skifter til satellit billede, og vi finder endnu en bro, og det hele begynder at give mening. Broen ser ud til at krydse floden i øst-vestlig retning. Så dette kunne være vores bro. Og vi zoomer ind. Vi begynder at se at den har en midterlinje, så det er en tosporet bro. Og den har de sorte og hvide kantsten som vi så i filmklippet, og i takt med at vi klikker igennem det, kan man se at nogen har uploadet billeder der passer til kortet, hvilket er rigtig smart, så vi kan klikke os ind på billederne. Og billederne begynder at vise os flere detaljer som vi kan krydshenvise med filmklippet. Den første ting vi ser er, at vi ser den sorte og hvide kantsten, hvilket er smart, fordi den har vi set før. Vi ser det særprægede gelænder som vi så fyrene kaste kroppene ud over. Og vi gennemgår det til vi er sikre på at det er vores bro.
So onto Google Maps we go, and we start looking through literally every single bridge. We go to the dam that we talked about, we start just literally going through every time that road crosses the river, crossing off the bridges that don't match. We're looking for one that crosses east-west. And we get to Hama. We get all the way from the dam to Hama and there's no bridge. So we go a bit further. We switch to the satellite view, and we find another bridge, and everything starts to line up. The bridge looks like it's crossing the river east to west. So this could be our bridge. And we zoom right in. We start to see that it's got a median, so it's a two-lane bridge. And it's got the black-and-white curbs that we saw in the video, and as we click through it, you can see someone's uploaded photos to go with the map, which is very handy, so we click into the photos. And the photos start showing us more detail that we can cross-reference with the video. The first thing that we see is we see black-and-white curbing, which is handy because we've seen that before. We see the distinctive railing that we saw the guys throwing the bodies over. And we keep going through it until we're certain that this is our bridge.
Så hvad fortæller det mig? Jeg skal gå tilbage nu til mine tre kilder og se på hvad de fortalte mig: den der sagde at broen ikke eksisterede, den der sagde at broen ikke var i Hama, og den ene fyr der sagde, "Ja, broen eksisterer, men jeg er ikke sikker på vandniveauet." Nummer tre ser pludselig ud til at være den mest sandfærdige, og vi har været i stand til at finde ud af det ved at bruge nogle gratis internet værktøjer siddende i en bås på en kontor i Dublin i løbet af 20 minutter. Og det er den del ved dette jeg holder af. Selvom nettet kører som en strøm, er der så meget information der at det er utrolig stift at sortere og det bliver sværere hver dag, hvis man bruger dem intelligent, man kan finde så meget utrolig information. Ved at få et par ledetråde, kunne jeg sikkert finde ud af en masse ting om de fleste af jer i publikummet som I måske ikke synes om at jeg fandt ud af.
So what does that tell me? I've got to go back now to my three sources and look at what they told me: the one who said the bridge didn't exist, the one who said the bridge wasn't in Hama, and the one guy who said, "Yes, the bridge does exist, but I'm not sure about the water levels." Number three is looking like the most truthful all of a sudden, and we've been able to find that out using some free Internet tools sitting in a cubicle in an office in Dublin in the space of 20 minutes. And that's part of the joy of this. Although the web is running like a torrent, there's so much information there that it's incredibly hard to sift and getting harder every day, if you use them intelligently, you can find out incredible information. Given a couple of clues, I could probably find out a lot of things about most of you in the audience that you might not like me finding out.
Men det det fortæller mig er, at i en tid hvor der er mere -- der er en større mængde af information end der nogensinde har været før, er det sværere at sortere, vi har bedre værktøjer. Vi har gratis internet værktøjer der tillader os, hjælper os med at udføre denne slags efterforskning. Vi har algoritmer der er smartere end nogensinde før, og computere der er hurtigere end nogensinde før.
But what it tells me is that, at a time when there's more -- there's a greater abundance of information than there ever has been, it's harder to filter, we have greater tools. We have free Internet tools that allow us, help us do this kind of investigation. We have algorithms that are smarter than ever before, and computers that are quicker than ever before.
Men her er sagen. Algoritmer er regler. De er binære. De er ja eller nej, de er sorte eller hvide. Sandheden er aldrig binær. Sandheden er en værdi. Sandheden er følelsesmæssig, den er flydende, og frem for alt er den menneskelig. Uanset hvor hurtige vi bliver med computere, uanset hvor meget information vi har, vil man aldrig være i stand til at fjerne mennesket fra den sandhedssøgende øvelse, fordi til slut, er det et enestående menneskeligt karaktertræk. Mange tak. (Bifald)
But here's the thing. Algorithms are rules. They're binary. They're yes or no, they're black or white. Truth is never binary. Truth is a value. Truth is emotional, it's fluid, and above all, it's human. No matter how quick we get with computers, no matter how much information we have, you'll never be able to remove the human from the truth-seeking exercise, because in the end, it is a uniquely human trait. Thanks very much. (Applause)