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
1
@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
Replies
9
@binkle i'm trying to think of an existing system where truth is incentivized and it's difficult for me to even imagine something like that. The only situation I can think of is some hypothetical BDFL.
Badguy✦
@RustyCrab @binkle the only way it could be incentivized is if lying were a punishable offense as a whole
and that i think a lot of us were conditioned to believe is bad cuz 1984 or fahrenheit something idk
and that i think a lot of us were conditioned to believe is bad cuz 1984 or fahrenheit something idk
@RustyCrab this is why I say it's got to be the moral solution. Any extrinsic rewards that attempt to incentivize it will be gamed by people who lie for their own benefit. It has to be an internal, intrinsic desire for truth that stops a person from lying, and because that only stops that one person (not everyone else around him), it has to be that the internal desire is shared in common among all (or at least almost all) of the people. In a society like that, people who are found to have lied or cheated are essentially persona-non-grata
@RustyCrab when you think about it, the BDFL (and assumably his inferiors and advisors together with him) is essentially a smaller society of what I described, imposing its values upon a larger, subservient one
@binkle yes, you just have to get very lucky unfortunately. There are a few case cases of this happening in the real world to my knowledge
@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
@binkle @RustyCrab news media is basically worthless, which is why it’s shifted into entertainment, and as a schelling point for political tribes to gather around and organize. Objectivity and integrity without some kind of verification that hurts if they’re wrong is a meaningless idea. Journalism may not even be a verifiable field, since they’re the primary source in a lot of instances. Maybe something like peer-review, but that’s just spreading the problem out. Probably best to just avoid it entirely.