3 ms·

> But I want to ask all of you: what replaces it as arbiter of truth? The decentralized model. Aka everybody has to think for themselves, like responsible grow

> But I want to ask all of you: what replaces it as arbiter of truth? The decentralized model. Aka everybody has to think for themselves, like responsible grown ups are supposed to do. The fact that some people think a central authority of truth is necessary is terribly sad.

nl 6y ago
Don't think of popular news sources as sources of news, and instead of communication channels large numbers watch. "decentralized" doesn't seem so different to what we have now through that lens.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  It is substantially different. The “problem” we have today is that too many different commentators, and the people who consume their commentary, are free to make their own decisions about credibility, motive, interpretations of events... Which of course leads to people disagreeing about those things. Some people would say this is a fundamental feature of a liberal democracy. Others will look at those they disagree with, and say they are spreading misinformation, that every avenue they have for expression must be restricted, and controlled by a central authority responsible for determining what is true and what is not true. I would say that having a free democracy, and having an arbiter of truth are mutually exclusive states. The people who see the need for a truth arbiter, and try to implement solutions for the problem of lacking one, can only ever do so at the expense of democratic freedoms.
  - etripe 6y ago
    > The “problem” we have today is that too many different commentators No, the problem is the so-called "democratisation" of journalism and the corresponding cross-fade between "shill", "pundit" and "journalist". It's not the diversity in voices, but rather the lowering of the bar. Any random YouTube hack can proclaim themselves a "journalist" or "commentator", regardless of their credentials or affiliation. Meanwhile, traditionally trustworthy media channels are trying to be "fair and balanced" by including both sides in a debate, regardless of whether both sides are sane. Think anti-vaxxers, Holocaust deniers or flat earthers versus their rational counterparts. Then there are more complex issues like "stolen" elections and Brexit. This "both sides", "marketplace of ideas" approach also stimulates polarisation, making everything a partisan issue, especially in politically bipolar countries like the US or the UK. Suddenly, even well-accepted facts are "controversial", generating clicks because all that matters is engagement. > Others will look at those they disagree with, and say they are spreading misinformation That's a very modern (as in, post-modern) take. There is no denying there is a lot of actual misinformation on "both sides". It's not so much who you disagree with, but journalistic integrity, of which I frankly don't see a lot, regardless of whether we're talking about the Guardian, New York Times, Washington Post, the Independent, Fox News, Newsmax or OAN. They're all mainly pushing an agenda, during which they at least lie by omission. What's more, they no longer distinguish between OpEds and news reporting. > free democracy, and having an arbiter of truth are mutually exclusive states That's a false dichotomy. There doesn't need to be a single arbiter ("Ministry", if you will) of Truth. The purported added benefit of the fourth estate is its many voices would each do their part in verifying the veracity of claims and elucidating the context of events. It's required for a functional liberal democracy because powerful voices can otherwise dominate the narrative and peddle messages like "regulation is at odds with a functional economy" or "fact checking our statements implies bias". With the number of journalists decreasing by 75% in the US since the advent of the Internet, the fourth estate has obviously become increasingly dysfunctional and shallow.
  - afiori 6y ago
    this is true, but on the other hand a society needs to be coherent (at least insofar as it is needed to support social interactions). a society built on several isolated nucleuses can vary wildly, a society where we expect people a thousands kilometers away to campaign in social media for local elections needs to be more uniform not to split
rimiform 6y ago
I don't think that idea even works in theory, let alone in practice. In lieu of making a longpost about why this doesn't seem like a good idea to me, I'm just going to defer to the story of the Tower of Babel. You could also see Lippman's 'Public Opinion' on the problem.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  Freedom to speak and think for yourself is a fundamental element of any democratic system. If you like, you can make a long post about why you think those values aren’t a good idea, but you can’t undermine them without also undermining the entire basis of democracy.
notahacker 6y ago
The media is already decentralized; there are many news sources and they often do not entirely agree with each other. People understandably are keen to prioritise the accounts of outlets they believe to be generally reliable over those they don't. Those considered most reliable fulfil the informal role of "arbiter of truth" for their audiences. I don't think further decentralizing so each individual has to carry out original research with primary sources to obtain any sort of picture of what happened in the world yesterday would represent a feasible improvement, and I suspect the conclusions people would draw instead of doing that research would be [even] worse.
- CountDrewku 6y ago
  It is not decentralized. All you need to do is look up who owns these sources to realize that.
CountDrewku 6y ago
People that want a central authority just want control over what other people think. The reality is that this problem with main stream media will fix itself as people drop it to find sources they deem more truthful. A central authority loses the ability to have checks and balances of opposing news sources and it's a terrifying idea. Disagreement is A GOOD THING. This keeps these outlets in check. Anyone asking for this needs to realize they're advocating for the real life Thought Police.

nl 6y ago

Don't think of popular news sources as sources of news, and instead of communication channels large numbers watch. "decentralized" doesn't seem so different to what we have now through that lens.

AmericanChopper 6y ago
It is substantially different. The “problem” we have today is that too many different commentators, and the people who consume their commentary, are free to make their own decisions about credibility, motive, interpretations of events... Which of course leads to people disagreeing about those things. Some people would say this is a fundamental feature of a liberal democracy. Others will look at those they disagree with, and say they are spreading misinformation, that every avenue they have for expression must be restricted, and controlled by a central authority responsible for determining what is true and what is not true. I would say that having a free democracy, and having an arbiter of truth are mutually exclusive states. The people who see the need for a truth arbiter, and try to implement solutions for the problem of lacking one, can only ever do so at the expense of democratic freedoms.
- etripe 6y ago
  > The “problem” we have today is that too many different commentators No, the problem is the so-called "democratisation" of journalism and the corresponding cross-fade between "shill", "pundit" and "journalist". It's not the diversity in voices, but rather the lowering of the bar. Any random YouTube hack can proclaim themselves a "journalist" or "commentator", regardless of their credentials or affiliation. Meanwhile, traditionally trustworthy media channels are trying to be "fair and balanced" by including both sides in a debate, regardless of whether both sides are sane. Think anti-vaxxers, Holocaust deniers or flat earthers versus their rational counterparts. Then there are more complex issues like "stolen" elections and Brexit. This "both sides", "marketplace of ideas" approach also stimulates polarisation, making everything a partisan issue, especially in politically bipolar countries like the US or the UK. Suddenly, even well-accepted facts are "controversial", generating clicks because all that matters is engagement. > Others will look at those they disagree with, and say they are spreading misinformation That's a very modern (as in, post-modern) take. There is no denying there is a lot of actual misinformation on "both sides". It's not so much who you disagree with, but journalistic integrity, of which I frankly don't see a lot, regardless of whether we're talking about the Guardian, New York Times, Washington Post, the Independent, Fox News, Newsmax or OAN. They're all mainly pushing an agenda, during which they at least lie by omission. What's more, they no longer distinguish between OpEds and news reporting. > free democracy, and having an arbiter of truth are mutually exclusive states That's a false dichotomy. There doesn't need to be a single arbiter ("Ministry", if you will) of Truth. The purported added benefit of the fourth estate is its many voices would each do their part in verifying the veracity of claims and elucidating the context of events. It's required for a functional liberal democracy because powerful voices can otherwise dominate the narrative and peddle messages like "regulation is at odds with a functional economy" or "fact checking our statements implies bias". With the number of journalists decreasing by 75% in the US since the advent of the Internet, the fourth estate has obviously become increasingly dysfunctional and shallow.
- afiori 6y ago
  this is true, but on the other hand a society needs to be coherent (at least insofar as it is needed to support social interactions). a society built on several isolated nucleuses can vary wildly, a society where we expect people a thousands kilometers away to campaign in social media for local elections needs to be more uniform not to split

rimiform 6y ago

I don't think that idea even works in theory, let alone in practice. In lieu of making a longpost about why this doesn't seem like a good idea to me, I'm just going to defer to the story of the Tower of Babel. You could also see Lippman's 'Public Opinion' on the problem.

AmericanChopper 6y ago
Freedom to speak and think for yourself is a fundamental element of any democratic system. If you like, you can make a long post about why you think those values aren’t a good idea, but you can’t undermine them without also undermining the entire basis of democracy.

notahacker 6y ago

The media is already decentralized; there are many news sources and they often do not entirely agree with each other. People understandably are keen to prioritise the accounts of outlets they believe to be generally reliable over those they don't. Those considered most reliable fulfil the informal role of "arbiter of truth" for their audiences. I don't think further decentralizing so each individual has to carry out original research with primary sources to obtain any sort of picture of what happened in the world yesterday would represent a feasible improvement, and I suspect the conclusions people would draw instead of doing that research would be [even] worse.

CountDrewku 6y ago
It is not decentralized. All you need to do is look up who owns these sources to realize that.

CountDrewku 6y ago

People that want a central authority just want control over what other people think. The reality is that this problem with main stream media will fix itself as people drop it to find sources they deem more truthful. A central authority loses the ability to have checks and balances of opposing news sources and it's a terrifying idea. Disagreement is A GOOD THING. This keeps these outlets in check. Anyone asking for this needs to realize they're advocating for the real life Thought Police.