3 ms·

Social media is just as untrustworthy as traditional news. Friends sharing news/propaganda from various outlets. Fake users astroturfing on reddit/twitter/HN/f

Social media is just as untrustworthy as traditional news. Friends sharing news/propaganda from various outlets. Fake users astroturfing on reddit/twitter/HN/facebook/insta. I dont know what the future is, but I'm positive its going to be first-hand sources. At least that way, you are going to be skeptical the entire time and that persons reputation is at stake.

beat 8y ago
We kind of have that first-hand future already. Consider Trump's twitter feed. He speaks directly to the public, in a simple and direct way, largely immune to editing/manipulation. Sure, it's insane, but it's the most direct communication we've ever had from a president, and that's kind of impressive. But in general, the problem with first hand sources is credibility. How do you know you can trust a first hand source you've never heard of? Are they giving us a complete or fair picture? Or are they either unintentionally or intentionally misleading us with incomplete/incorrect information? I'd like to say the future is in credibility and integrity, but I fear that's actually the past. Now, people just believe what they want to believe, and pick and choose their facts to fit their internal narrative. It's nihilistic and terrifying, and I have no idea how society can resist it.
- PAClearner 8y ago
  Reading a full unedited transcription of a speech from a president is also pretty direct... that's existed for 150 years at least i.e. https://yorkblog.com/yorkspast/read-the-actual-article-next-day-newspaper-coverage-of-lincolns-gettysburg-address/ https://yorkblog.com/yorkspast/read-the-actual-article-next-...
  - beat 8y ago
    Unfortunately, most people lack the patience for such things. I remember in 2016, Hillary would give deeply detailed hour-long policy speeches about all sorts of stuff, and then her critics would claim she didn't have detailed plans. Sigh. (Not a question of whether you agree or disagree with them, but nobody rational writes and delivers an hour-long policy speech that's a straight-up lie about their intentions.)

beat 8y ago

We kind of have that first-hand future already. Consider Trump's twitter feed. He speaks directly to the public, in a simple and direct way, largely immune to editing/manipulation. Sure, it's insane, but it's the most direct communication we've ever had from a president, and that's kind of impressive. But in general, the problem with first hand sources is credibility. How do you know you can trust a first hand source you've never heard of? Are they giving us a complete or fair picture? Or are they either unintentionally or intentionally misleading us with incomplete/incorrect information? I'd like to say the future is in credibility and integrity, but I fear that's actually the past. Now, people just believe what they want to believe, and pick and choose their facts to fit their internal narrative. It's nihilistic and terrifying, and I have no idea how society can resist it.

PAClearner 8y ago
Reading a full unedited transcription of a speech from a president is also pretty direct... that's existed for 150 years at least i.e. https://yorkblog.com/yorkspast/read-the-actual-article-next-day-newspaper-coverage-of-lincolns-gettysburg-address/ https://yorkblog.com/yorkspast/read-the-actual-article-next-...
- beat 8y ago
  Unfortunately, most people lack the patience for such things. I remember in 2016, Hillary would give deeply detailed hour-long policy speeches about all sorts of stuff, and then her critics would claim she didn't have detailed plans. Sigh. (Not a question of whether you agree or disagree with them, but nobody rational writes and delivers an hour-long policy speech that's a straight-up lie about their intentions.)