5 ms·
I like 'post-truth' seems to imply a different past, one of truth and objectivity and noble deeds. I don't believe that actually ever existed or that things are
by Gruselbauer 10y ago
I like 'post-truth' seems to imply a different past, one of truth and objectivity and noble deeds. I don't believe that actually ever existed or that things are better or worse now. You might say Watergate, I could reply Snowden.
I do believe we're making it easy for people to get only the 'news' they agree with, read only the op-ed that spells out their thoughts.
But it's just as easy to tap into voices of dissent, to find views that are radically foreign to one's own. Maybe even easier and less stressful than it was in other ages.
I think blaming the media or age for intellectual laziness and corporate/political disinformation is neither fair nor productive.
- igravious 10y agoHa, quite right. As if there were some verdant past lush with truth. People want to point the finger. At whom should we point it? At the figure in the mirror? Maybe these things go in cycles. Wasn't there at post to HN a couple of months ago about a chat/forum service that connected unlike with unlike. There'd be a social good in that if it were pervasive. Not only "know thyself" but "know thy enemy".