zlacker

That is a view which is entirely opposed to my own. I have no faith that there is some authoritative entity that could objectively determine what is a lie and what is the truth.

>>baggy_+(OP)
If you don't act against disinformation, you get a world that is spammed with so many statements that it's impossible for the average consumer to assess the truth of any of them.

Is that what you want?

If yes, why? If not, what's your approach?

>>perlge+o5
I already stated my approach. Let speech be met by more speech in return. Consumers can assess the credibility of each.

>>baggy_+i7
> Consumers can assess the credibility of each.

I ain't doing all that work. I'm picking whatever I already believe in.

/s but only kind of. That's how most people think. They aren't enlightened like you.

>>baggy_+i7
But your approach results in someone who can't even conceive of the truth being identifiable. It doesn't seem like a great way to run a society.

>>baggy_+(OP)
The opposite of “truth” is not “lie”, however.

>>baggy_+i7
> Consumers can assess the credibility of each.

Assuming intelligence is normally distributed, then what's the plan for the bottom 50% here?

>>jandre+K9
I am unable to connect your sentence to what I said.

>>acuozz+rs
As stated.

>>perlge+o5
Let people be wrong

>>baggy_+zz
> I have no faith that there is some authoritative entity that could objectively determine what is a lie and what is the truth.

I read this as "it is impossible to determine truth". If there exists a well resourced entity who's entire purpose in life is to determine objective truth and they are unable to do so what chance do I have?

>>dec0de+1G
That's great until it convinces them to make real-world decisions that affect the rest of us. For instance, vaccine misinformation talked a lot of people against getting safe (or at least safer than the illness), effective (not perfect, but effective) immunity shots for COVID. Those people are dead from being wrong.

I think someone's an idiot for denying the moon landings, but their ignorance doesn't directly affect my ability to stay alive and health. Some misinformation is worse than others.

>>baggy_+(OP)
Well said. It surprises me so many people don't see the danger inherent in anointing 'fact checkers' who are supposed to adjudicate some objective "truth" around complex culture war issues along with the power to suppress other viewpoints.

Free speech isn't free. We pay for it by tolerating speech that's unpleasant, uncomfortable, wrong, insulting, offensive or hateful.

>>jandre+K9
Having the power to determine truth does not seem like a great way to run a society even if it gets you some easy wins on other fronts.

It might work at first and be effective for some time in the same way that a dictator can "get things done" but there is no free lunch.

Eventually you will get evil dictators, power hungry arbitrators of truth. It will bite you. It is only a question of when. It might be years or generations. The only winning move is not to play. Don't concentrate the power in the first place.

>>kstrau+7S
Judges are fallible, therefore a judicial system is impossible!

>>kstrau+7S
The corrosive effect of suppressing potential misinformation is far worse than allowing it to spread.

>>jandre+YK
You just have to use your best judgement like everybody else.

>>baggy_+Gz
Understood. It's an interesting long-term strategy to revive Feudalism.

>>acuozz+043
More a strategy to avoid totalitarianism.

>>baggy_+Cl3
By leaving the bottom 50% to be propagandized by populists?

If we were still living in the time of thirteen channels and Walter Cronkite on the CBS Evening News, I'd be inclined to agree with you.

>>acuozz+IK3
An elite thinking that they know the truth and should suppress falsehoods is much more dangerous, so yes.

>>baggy_+EP2
That's the problem though. Your judgement gets warped by the constant stream of lies. That's the fundamental concept behind propaganda. If you repeat a lie enough times it will be believed. Everybody thinks they're too smart to be taken in by propaganda, that's one of the reasons it works so well.

>>jandre+qr7
That's true, and it works both ways.