5 ms·

The government, scientists, experts in various fields, people who have proven to tell the truth in the past, etc. You obviously still have your own ability to

The government, scientists, experts in various fields, people who have proven to tell the truth in the past, etc. You obviously still have your own ability to determine what fits your model of the universe and what doesn't. These are just groups of people more likely to have access to information that you might not. You don't have to trust anyone, but in a system where someone has to judge what is true, these groups are closer than the alternative, which would be people with no qualifications, no training, and no history of telling the truth. If you have another alternative I'm all ears.

sandoooo 6y ago
>The government, scientists, experts in various fields, people who have proven to tell the truth in the past, etc. But how has it been implemented in practice? If you look at the raw numbers, generally we rely on the lowest bidders amongst Facebook/Google/Twitter's third-world-country subcontractors, as well as the Chinese government.
- imustbeevil 6y ago
  The existing practice is for the community of these sites to upvote good content and downvote bad content. Separately, moderators purge controversial content as a check/balance to the voting system. If users feel that the moderation is inconsistent with their content desires, they choose a different site to frequent, as is the case in market systems.
  - sandoooo 6y ago
    again, if you look at the whole system in aggregate, the existing practice is for GooFaceTwitBaba to farm out their moderation works to subcontractors, while also bending backwards to prevalent political headwinds to preserve their shareholder value. If users feel that the moderation is inconsistent with their content desires, they are free to leave the megaplatforms and become approximately completely irrelevant, thus achieving the exact same effect as being deplatformed.
    - imustbeevil 6y ago
      What is your alternative system? It's very easy to point out that nothing is perfect. It's very difficult to come up with a better solution.
vorpalhex 6y ago
Often times the truth is not popular, even amongst those who should be protecting it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial
- vharuck 6y ago
  Far more often, the truth is "popular" but boring. Not every nay-sayer is Galileo.
Falling3 6y ago
Governments, scientists, and experts have also been proven to be wrong and to have lied in the past.
- Nihilartikel 6y ago
  A scientist being wrong is GOOD! The scientific process relies on assimilation of negative results. If a scientist is emotionally attached to a result and ignores a result that they don't like, they are no longer engaged in science. Peer review and replication is the correcting factor for the unfortunate reality that science must be, for the moment carried out by humans. At the very least, when operating properly science becomes less wrong. That cannot be said for politicians who are interested in nothing but confirmation of their preconceptions. There is a special place in hell for those who cynically use the fact that scientists are sometimes wrong as an attack against the very existence of knowledge and consensus reality itself.
  - Falling3 6y ago
    I don't disagree with you. The only thing I'm arguing against is the GP's comment that we should blindly put our trust in the groups mentioned. Some of the best parts about science, as you've pointed out, are peer review and replication. There should never be a need to put your faith in an individual scientist and take them at their word. >There is a special place in hell for those who cynically use the fact that scientists are sometimes wrong as an attack against the very existence of knowledge and consensus reality itself. I hope it's clear that I was in no way doing that.
    - Nihilartikel 6y ago
      Reading charitably, I don't believe that it's what you meant. But with disturbing frequency, I do see similar words uttered and written with fairly clear cynical intent.
      - Falling3 6y ago
        I completely agree; it's an alarming trend that's used to sew ignorance. Blindly following experts clearly isn't an antidote to that, which is all I was trying to express originally.

sandoooo 6y ago

>The government, scientists, experts in various fields, people who have proven to tell the truth in the past, etc. But how has it been implemented in practice? If you look at the raw numbers, generally we rely on the lowest bidders amongst Facebook/Google/Twitter's third-world-country subcontractors, as well as the Chinese government.

imustbeevil 6y ago
The existing practice is for the community of these sites to upvote good content and downvote bad content. Separately, moderators purge controversial content as a check/balance to the voting system. If users feel that the moderation is inconsistent with their content desires, they choose a different site to frequent, as is the case in market systems.
- sandoooo 6y ago
  again, if you look at the whole system in aggregate, the existing practice is for GooFaceTwitBaba to farm out their moderation works to subcontractors, while also bending backwards to prevalent political headwinds to preserve their shareholder value. If users feel that the moderation is inconsistent with their content desires, they are free to leave the megaplatforms and become approximately completely irrelevant, thus achieving the exact same effect as being deplatformed.
  - imustbeevil 6y ago
    What is your alternative system? It's very easy to point out that nothing is perfect. It's very difficult to come up with a better solution.

vorpalhex 6y ago

Often times the truth is not popular, even amongst those who should be protecting it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

vharuck 6y ago
Far more often, the truth is "popular" but boring. Not every nay-sayer is Galileo.

Falling3 6y ago

Governments, scientists, and experts have also been proven to be wrong and to have lied in the past.

Nihilartikel 6y ago
A scientist being wrong is GOOD! The scientific process relies on assimilation of negative results. If a scientist is emotionally attached to a result and ignores a result that they don't like, they are no longer engaged in science. Peer review and replication is the correcting factor for the unfortunate reality that science must be, for the moment carried out by humans. At the very least, when operating properly science becomes less wrong. That cannot be said for politicians who are interested in nothing but confirmation of their preconceptions. There is a special place in hell for those who cynically use the fact that scientists are sometimes wrong as an attack against the very existence of knowledge and consensus reality itself.
- Falling3 6y ago
  I don't disagree with you. The only thing I'm arguing against is the GP's comment that we should blindly put our trust in the groups mentioned. Some of the best parts about science, as you've pointed out, are peer review and replication. There should never be a need to put your faith in an individual scientist and take them at their word. >There is a special place in hell for those who cynically use the fact that scientists are sometimes wrong as an attack against the very existence of knowledge and consensus reality itself. I hope it's clear that I was in no way doing that.
  - Nihilartikel 6y ago
    Reading charitably, I don't believe that it's what you meant. But with disturbing frequency, I do see similar words uttered and written with fairly clear cynical intent.
    - Falling3 6y ago
      I completely agree; it's an alarming trend that's used to sew ignorance. Blindly following experts clearly isn't an antidote to that, which is all I was trying to express originally.