4 ms·
> 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. Inform
by 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 agoI 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.