> don't expect anyone to agree on who's 'trusted' This has always been the case. I personally have issues with almost every major news outlet recently. Not jus

> don't expect anyone to agree on who's 'trusted' This has always been the case. I personally have issues with almost every major news outlet recently. Not just bias but blatant one-sided partisan reporting by nearly every actor. Not taking a side (nobody even remotely spoke to my values or concience) this election really opened my eyes. Both sides hatefully attacking each other for being hateful, and using that to justify further hate (of hate, so its cool, we arent all bigots right? Right!?) of the other 'side'. Neither side will even give the benefit of a doubt that what the other side does is in good faith with their values. It was kinda funny when drunk sports fans duked it out over forgone alegences to groups that don't know they exist, but its happening in casual social situations more and more. How much more of this before our own beerhall putsch moments begin? I digress... Trust is already a fickle beast. Bloomberg is wrestling with it now, no matter their rigour. Personally, I think it might be a choice, by prompting either a culture of verification and lockdown (modern china), or implied common trust in an ideal but uncertainty (i.e. early usa). Both have huge advantages, injustices, and liabilities. It seems we have approached a middle ground with few of the perks of either and many of the disadvantages to both. Perhaps there is a better way moving forward. I am personally partial to 'dangerous' freedom, over 'safe' subjugation, in all cases. As such, my values my differ may from the mean. Such a system implies personal agency, which is rejected by the popular dogmatic fatalism of 'post-meritocracy'.