3 ms·
Yes - but generally only of information that contradicts their pre-existing views. This whole thing is, after all, basically a way of helping to reassure Guardi
by makomk 7y ago
Yes - but generally only of information that contradicts their pre-existing views. This whole thing is, after all, basically a way of helping to reassure Guardian readers who've seen their political side lose with the help of those they expected to support them that their views were right all along, and that it's all the fault of global manipulation by big tech brainwashing the other people into voting against their own interests. I've never seen any of the people bemoaning this consider that maybe their side suffers from a systematic disinformation problem, not even after being caught out time and time again by false information spread on social media, often by journalists.
- meowface 7y agoWhat kind of false information? I don't trust a single media outlet on Earth, but curious to see your examples.
- ianai 7y agoHow can anyone communicate believable information to you if you already don’t trust anyone? Regardless, I’d suggest reading Descartes or some philosophy of logic. You can’t trust everybody, but there are high value sources out there. The media are largely ok.
- meowface 7y agoI didn't articulate my view on that fully; I do spend a lot of time thinking about epistemology and logic, and I trust a lot of people (though I'm not very trustful of most large corporations). I was just setting that up to make it clear I was asking for evidence out of curiosity rather than passive aggressive skepticism. Generally if a media outlet reports something as a hard fact, I do believe it.
- ianai 7y agoNonetheless your comment made me realize the current propaganda problem has many people acting and in a state of disbelief not dissimilar to being solipsists. I remember reading about that POV quite often in philosophy. So maybe a relevant piece of work exists for just our current problem.