zlacker

I wonder if the fact that we now can't trust anything we read is good or bad. Maybe it'll lead to critically thinking about everything.

>>Stavro+(OP)
Could you ever?

>>comboy+51
I meant in the specific sense of trusting the basic humanity of HN, not the general veracity of the internet at large.

>>Stavro+z1
I would want to say that comments should be judged solely on their content, but yes, "redis works for us" is a different message from an account that you know is CTO at some big corp instead of some random one.

Web of trust is inevitable either way. I just hope it won't be owned by any huge company. Most likely it will be practically shared by a few of them, like the Internet or web standards.

After playing some with GPT-3 though I noticed I work a lot of like it though. Unrelated comments about web of trust are a great example.

Also, dude, I see you in almost every comment thread, how do you consume HN? Some clever scripts or lots of tabs and lots of refreshing?

>>comboy+a2
Haha, I think I'm just more likely to comment than anyone else. I just read HN a few times during the day, nothing extravagant.

It might be confirmation bias (or maybe we just like the same things), if you look at my history I only leave a few comments a day.

>>Stavro+(OP)
I suspect it's bad. Any cognitive dissonance and disagreement can be hand waved away as bots, rather than approached critically.

Ever since the 2016 foreign-meddling-in-the-election news, I've see people commenting that there must be tons of russian bots/shills/astroturfers/etc in comments where I see genuine disagreement. I'm sure there are both, but I suspect the dismissal of "'people/opinions' that disagree with me aren't real people/opinions" is more common than the actual act of fake commenting.