3 ms·

This has nothing to do with logic or rationality. No one is capable of fact checking everything. At best the rational choice is to not believe anyone. Which is

by mola 6y ago

This has nothing to do with logic or rationality. No one is capable of fact checking everything. At best the rational choice is to not believe anyone. Which is exactly what most adversarial information actors want to achieve. When we lose trust, a lot of us are easier to control by gross power, the others just have no means of communicating coherently.

giantg2 6y ago
I'd argue that we are under less control if we aren't trusting, unless you are implying we continue to trust the government while distrusting each other. If we don't blindly follow the government, then we would be more likely to resist their rule. Also, even if the rational choice is to not trust anyone, that doesn't make it the reasonable choice. I think many people would make the reasonable choice to "trust but verify".
xab31 6y ago
Even middle schoolers are taught that there are "reliable sources" and "unreliable sources". Wikipedia (pretty good usually) is not considered a reliable source, let alone Twitter or Facebook. Even a reliable source, like an academic article or a nationally syndicated newspaper, can be wrong, and are, frequently. Basic logic and rationality would be enough for people to realize that "I saw it on Facebook" has basically no informational value. If anything, therefore it is the "reliable" sources which should be fact-checked, since they have greater credibility and influence, and because no one with any sense would believe something just because they saw it on Facebook and Twitter. The fact that many people appear to do so says, to me, that when people are on Facebook and Twitter, they really don't care about the truth of the matter, they are looking for things to fit their confirmation bias. Therefore we would expect "fact checking" on such platforms to accomplish very little, except for irritating people who are semi-consciously already aware that they are consuming right-wing propaganda, and see left-leaning propaganda as informationally equivalent, just a product for a different audience.

by mola 6y ago

giantg2 6y ago

I'd argue that we are under less control if we aren't trusting, unless you are implying we continue to trust the government while distrusting each other. If we don't blindly follow the government, then we would be more likely to resist their rule. Also, even if the rational choice is to not trust anyone, that doesn't make it the reasonable choice. I think many people would make the reasonable choice to "trust but verify".

xab31 6y ago

Even middle schoolers are taught that there are "reliable sources" and "unreliable sources". Wikipedia (pretty good usually) is not considered a reliable source, let alone Twitter or Facebook. Even a reliable source, like an academic article or a nationally syndicated newspaper, can be wrong, and are, frequently. Basic logic and rationality would be enough for people to realize that "I saw it on Facebook" has basically no informational value. If anything, therefore it is the "reliable" sources which should be fact-checked, since they have greater credibility and influence, and because no one with any sense would believe something just because they saw it on Facebook and Twitter. The fact that many people appear to do so says, to me, that when people are on Facebook and Twitter, they really don't care about the truth of the matter, they are looking for things to fit their confirmation bias. Therefore we would expect "fact checking" on such platforms to accomplish very little, except for irritating people who are semi-consciously already aware that they are consuming right-wing propaganda, and see left-leaning propaganda as informationally equivalent, just a product for a different audience.