The biggest issue is there is literally no economic incentive for giving accurate information. What the fuck are you supposed to do about that
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
4
@RustyCrab the market/distributed solution is the old boomer idea that more trustworthy sources will be elevated by the rational choice of the market, but that doesn't really work out in practice because many people prefer bias-strengthening over bias-challenging, which means the market can't really make a rational decision here because people are not rational about it in aggregate
the supply-side solution is regulation, but that's subject to corruption as well for similar reasons to the above
the only other solution is the moral one, which requires moral homogeneity (or at least an overwhelming supermajority). That either takes a period of brutal strife, a protracted national conversion, or something miraculous
I opt for the third one, personally, accepting the long time-frame as a given
the supply-side solution is regulation, but that's subject to corruption as well for similar reasons to the above
the only other solution is the moral one, which requires moral homogeneity (or at least an overwhelming supermajority). That either takes a period of brutal strife, a protracted national conversion, or something miraculous
I opt for the third one, personally, accepting the long time-frame as a given
@binkle @RustyCrab it also implies there’s a meaningful way to check a journalistic source as a consumer, which a) journalists and the government tell you not to do and b) basically makes you a journalist with less footwork.
@Griffith @RustyCrab that's true. To be honest I'm not sure it's possible to have a foolproof method for not being lied to, because it would imply that you could read a person's intentions with absolute certainty. I'm not sure we would actually like a world where that was possible
Replies
0Fetching replies…