> "Even when we know that the information we are reading is false, we can still end up believing it" I'm not saying human perception is the 'solved problem' -

> "Even when we know that the information we are reading is false, we can still end up believing it" I'm not saying human perception is the 'solved problem' - if I know something is false, then can I also believe it ? I actually think the human mind is capable of believing both proposition "X is true" and its logical negation "X is not true". eg "birds are dinosaurs" is both true and not true, inmnsho. I want people to believe things that are true, but this would require much wider access to higher quality science education, as well as access to good information, protected freedom of speech ... My feeling is the Twitter model - where outrageous untruths are tagged with a notice - is a good start, and much better than the path of outright censorship that youtube seems to be choosing. I'd like to see a kind of wikipedia crowd-sourced model to fact-check social media - flag a post/comment with "controversial" / "established dogma" / "noncontroversial" / "conspiracy theory" : ] - similar to how we have pseudo-public reviews of books on Amazon and goodreads. Perhaps this can be gamed, but we still have wikipedia and much of it _is_ accurate, so there is hope.