zlacker

>>codech+(OP)
If anything good can come of this, I hope some of the folks who trusted the science begins to realize that people are behind science and people often act in their own best interest. Not that it will change much but we can at least stop yelling down and shaming skeptics.

>>mmcgah+G6
this is terrifying.. who can we even trust then :\

Such exposed dishonesty leads to more and more people completely losing faith in everything that the scientists say and turning into anti-vaccers etc.

>>seaman+A9
You don't "trust" often or very much. You look for a society where conflicting ideas are encouraged and are based in reason not whacky extremist ideology. You trust good disagreements and debates, you look for argument and parties which try to convince with facts and solid arguments.

We can't just live in a world where my side is right and your side is evil.

The strength of the US system of government and any democracy comes from diversity of thought and opinion which is good enough and respectful enough to actually be interested in arriving at the truth.

Instead we have political process which is somewhere between a reality show, a sporting event, and a religion.

>>colech+ap
What does that say about social media censors and "fact checkers"?

>>chmod6+vs
Social media is in a very confuzed middle ground between publisher and public square. I don't want them to be the arbiters of truth nor do I want them to be megaphones for misinformation nor powerful tools for easy population manipulation... but here we are. The solutions aren't just in content moderation, but whatever it is, it is difficult.