4 ms·

The government has far too much vested interest to be trustworthy. What is required is a re-assertion of reputation. People have become far too willing to bel

The government has far too much vested interest to be trustworthy. What is required is a re-assertion of reputation. People have become far too willing to believe facebook posts, etc, and even respectable media has become far too willing to echo them. Reputable media sources need to re-assert their credentials, or even individual bloggers etc, need to step up to stand behind their posts. With a cadre of trustworthy sources, individuals can then take steps to exclude internet chum.

paradite 8y ago
I do agree with this sentiment. When I saw pewdiepie jokingly claim his YouTube news program to be "the most trustworthy news source", I actually want to agree with it seriously.
bilbo0s 8y ago
>The government has far too much vested interest to be trustworthy. So does everyone else. That's the Great Aporia here. How do we establish credibility in an environment that is 100% free of trust?
- swayvil 8y ago
  I don't think that "so does everyone else" really covers it. Some people are logically more trustworthy than others. People who are not under pressure to push a particular narrative, for example. Say, tenured university faculty. Educated people who's livelihood does not depend on saying the right thing. They get a high trustworthiness rating, right?
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    >tenured university faculty. Educated people who's livelihood does not depend on saying the right thing. They get a high trustworthiness rating, right? No. They are just as biased and have just as selfish an agenda as anyone else. Consider this, all of the scientific papers out there that we are finding to be erroneous lately had been "peer reviewed". Well, guess who those "peers" were? We all have biases and agendas that leave us open to potentially compromising our integrity. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not claiming to know how we should go about establishing authority in an environment devoid of trust. I'm just saying that I don't think it would be wise to simply assign automatic credibility to the government, or tenured academics, or police, or the clergy, or whatever else.
  - vixen99 8y ago
    It depends on what subject area. Tenured or not, folk who depend for their salaries, pensions and grants on funds provided by the taxpayer might perhaps, understandably, be much in favor of big government and state, generally supported by the Left. Not many right wing academics around.
    - bilbo0s 8y ago
      Doesn't really even have anything to do with "left" or "right". In reality "left" and "right" only serve to provide a convenient categorization method for sorting the groups and people that will tend to agree with a particular ideology. But all of those groups and people are not to be trusted, because they all have biases and agendas that lead to compromised integrity. (In the case of people and groups on the "left" or the "right", the bias and agenda is clear. They are compromising in support of their ideologies.)
echevil 8y ago
> The government has far too much vested interest to be trustworthy. Yet they are the only entity that can make laws against it

paradite 8y ago

I do agree with this sentiment. When I saw pewdiepie jokingly claim his YouTube news program to be "the most trustworthy news source", I actually want to agree with it seriously.

bilbo0s 8y ago

>The government has far too much vested interest to be trustworthy. So does everyone else. That's the Great Aporia here. How do we establish credibility in an environment that is 100% free of trust?

swayvil 8y ago
I don't think that "so does everyone else" really covers it. Some people are logically more trustworthy than others. People who are not under pressure to push a particular narrative, for example. Say, tenured university faculty. Educated people who's livelihood does not depend on saying the right thing. They get a high trustworthiness rating, right?
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  >tenured university faculty. Educated people who's livelihood does not depend on saying the right thing. They get a high trustworthiness rating, right? No. They are just as biased and have just as selfish an agenda as anyone else. Consider this, all of the scientific papers out there that we are finding to be erroneous lately had been "peer reviewed". Well, guess who those "peers" were? We all have biases and agendas that leave us open to potentially compromising our integrity. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not claiming to know how we should go about establishing authority in an environment devoid of trust. I'm just saying that I don't think it would be wise to simply assign automatic credibility to the government, or tenured academics, or police, or the clergy, or whatever else.
- vixen99 8y ago
  It depends on what subject area. Tenured or not, folk who depend for their salaries, pensions and grants on funds provided by the taxpayer might perhaps, understandably, be much in favor of big government and state, generally supported by the Left. Not many right wing academics around.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    Doesn't really even have anything to do with "left" or "right". In reality "left" and "right" only serve to provide a convenient categorization method for sorting the groups and people that will tend to agree with a particular ideology. But all of those groups and people are not to be trusted, because they all have biases and agendas that lead to compromised integrity. (In the case of people and groups on the "left" or the "right", the bias and agenda is clear. They are compromising in support of their ideologies.)

echevil 8y ago

> The government has far too much vested interest to be trustworthy. Yet they are the only entity that can make laws against it