3 ms·

> As long as communication has existed, communicating false or misleading information has existed I don't think it's ever been at such level, though. The whole

> As long as communication has existed, communicating false or misleading information has existed I don't think it's ever been at such level, though. The whole modern economy incentivizes the amplification of false and polarizing information for the sake of maximizing engagement. > The only way to combat it is with skepticism and critical thought It can only get you so far. You can see that even respectable sources are slowly slipping into reporting unverified info and hot controversial takes for the sake of clicks and ad revenue these days. If left alone, this trend will produce a situation where there won't be any source you trust enough to cross-check against.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
> I don't think it's even been at such level I haven't seen any evidence of that. Human beings communicate and consume information much more than they have before, but where's the evidence that has made the 'problem' worse? We're much less insular than we've ever been before, so any increase in exposure to misleading information has been accompanied by an increase in exposure to opposing view points. > It can only get you so far So can any pursuit of the truth. If you want to set the bar at discovering universal truths, then you're going to be disappointed. > this trend will produce a situation where there won't be any source you trust enough to cross-check against Good. There should never be a single source that you trust to always tell you the truth.
- bloody-crow 7y ago
  > Good. There should never be a single source that you trust to always tell you the truth. Society develops by relying on building trust and reputation. Information coming from a trustworthy source with good reputation is generally more valuable than information coming from someone who's known to be a liar. Current trend shifts the values in a way, where more engaging information produces more revenue. If you extrapolate it further, you get into a situation where society is reduced the level of cavemen when there's no way to share information because there's no trust and the only way to learn something is to experience is first-hand.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    I can’t see how this comment is substantiated. Personally I’ve always considered large media corporations to be quite untrustworthy. Anecdotally I’ve noticed that other people have been sharing that view more than before (perhaps I’m wrong about that, but that’s the way it looks to me). But let’s say less people trust Fox News or CNN less than they used to, how does that harm society exactly? To me that sounds like people are treating information with increased skepticism, and are likely consulting a more diverse set of sources than they used to. If that’s true then those self-regulating mechanisms of trust and reputation that you mentioned are in fact protecting society from the outcome you described.

AmericanChopper 7y ago

> I don't think it's even been at such level I haven't seen any evidence of that. Human beings communicate and consume information much more than they have before, but where's the evidence that has made the 'problem' worse? We're much less insular than we've ever been before, so any increase in exposure to misleading information has been accompanied by an increase in exposure to opposing view points. > It can only get you so far So can any pursuit of the truth. If you want to set the bar at discovering universal truths, then you're going to be disappointed. > this trend will produce a situation where there won't be any source you trust enough to cross-check against Good. There should never be a single source that you trust to always tell you the truth.

bloody-crow 7y ago
> Good. There should never be a single source that you trust to always tell you the truth. Society develops by relying on building trust and reputation. Information coming from a trustworthy source with good reputation is generally more valuable than information coming from someone who's known to be a liar. Current trend shifts the values in a way, where more engaging information produces more revenue. If you extrapolate it further, you get into a situation where society is reduced the level of cavemen when there's no way to share information because there's no trust and the only way to learn something is to experience is first-hand.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  I can’t see how this comment is substantiated. Personally I’ve always considered large media corporations to be quite untrustworthy. Anecdotally I’ve noticed that other people have been sharing that view more than before (perhaps I’m wrong about that, but that’s the way it looks to me). But let’s say less people trust Fox News or CNN less than they used to, how does that harm society exactly? To me that sounds like people are treating information with increased skepticism, and are likely consulting a more diverse set of sources than they used to. If that’s true then those self-regulating mechanisms of trust and reputation that you mentioned are in fact protecting society from the outcome you described.