3 ms·

The tabaco and oil industry (and other huge non-sustainabe and dangerous business models) cultivated this trust issue over decades with their silence denial met

The tabaco and oil industry (and other huge non-sustainabe and dangerous business models) cultivated this trust issue over decades with their silence denial methods like FLACC. It will not be easy against such powerfully interests, if even possible. One of my best sport buddies today told me that he won't come to global climate strike this year, because (true story) China used so much concrete for infrastructure lately that the earth will move which will make the poles melt anyways... Wtf. He "read it somewhere, it looked official, some institutional webpage". I was so deeply disappointed of the guy. We are doomed as long as spreading intentional disinformation via manipulated masses, fabricated mostly by PR agencies and think tanks is not a crime. Shit like this even brought Trump in office and keeps people like Putin or Erdogan in it. Spreading lies and manipulating people has nothing to do with free speech. Actually it will become our undoing I believe. This is the core of our problems in these times or maybe ever has been.

Nasrudith 4y ago
Who decides the truth without it being a zero-steps path to abuse?
- throwaway14356 4y ago
  We don't have to go for the truth even if we believe it to be obtainable. We can start by linking to accessible sources and requiring exact citations. Wikipedia has been doing it for ages. Then we may require impactful publications to be available to the public including a comment section for professionals in that field. then we can do an itemized bill disclosing who paid for the study again with a link to the entity explaining why they did and a comment section with the finances for professionals only. Have fines depending on the size of the org and the size of the audience and require retractions, updates and/or disclosure of the objections raised. That way it would be hard to publish that chocolate helps losing weight (as the funding is revealed) but if you manage to do it the citations by others would eventually link to retractions.
  - Nasrudith 4y ago
    Wikipedia doesn't have keys to power. If you want the truth to die screaming in agony you tie power to whom is decided is "right".
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  The scientific method. If you ask how the hypothesis that Chinese concrete moved the Earth was tested, you won't receive a response.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
WalterBright 4y ago
> The tabaco and oil industry (and other huge non-sustainabe and dangerous business models) cultivated this trust issue over decades There's this popular myth that nobody knew smoking was bad for you until the 1960s. My dad would laugh at this, saying when he was a boy (1930's) his fellows called them "coffin nails". Doctors then always advised their patients to quit smoking. In the 1960s, I saw a smoker's lung on display in a bottle of formaldehyde. It was black and looked horribly diseased. Another non-smoker's lung was also there, it looked pink and normal. A doctor who ever saw a smoker's lung would have to be crazy to not conclude smoking was bad for your health. It wasn't exactly rocket science.
DiggyJohnson 4y ago
I think your friend was looking for any reason to not spend their time involved with an activist cause they don’t care about on a personal level. I have a theory that since this sentiment is difficult to put into words, where an individual is disinclined to just say “nah I don’t really care enough”, they reach for dubious sources that make them sound more ridiculous than if they stated their subjective opinion bluntly.
heresie-dabord 4y ago
> We are doomed as long as spreading intentional disinformation via manipulated masses, fabricated mostly by PR agencies and think tanks is not a crime. Not only is it not a crime to promote falsehood, lunacy, and propaganda, it is simply easier, more lucrative, and politcally useful for the media business to participate in the intellectual gerrymandering of a population. On this very topic, but from half a century ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(1976_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(1976_film)

Nasrudith 4y ago

Who decides the truth without it being a zero-steps path to abuse?

throwaway14356 4y ago
We don't have to go for the truth even if we believe it to be obtainable. We can start by linking to accessible sources and requiring exact citations. Wikipedia has been doing it for ages. Then we may require impactful publications to be available to the public including a comment section for professionals in that field. then we can do an itemized bill disclosing who paid for the study again with a link to the entity explaining why they did and a comment section with the finances for professionals only. Have fines depending on the size of the org and the size of the audience and require retractions, updates and/or disclosure of the objections raised. That way it would be hard to publish that chocolate helps losing weight (as the funding is revealed) but if you manage to do it the citations by others would eventually link to retractions.
- Nasrudith 4y ago
  Wikipedia doesn't have keys to power. If you want the truth to die screaming in agony you tie power to whom is decided is "right".
lern_too_spel 4y ago
The scientific method. If you ask how the hypothesis that Chinese concrete moved the Earth was tested, you won't receive a response.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

WalterBright 4y ago

> The tabaco and oil industry (and other huge non-sustainabe and dangerous business models) cultivated this trust issue over decades There's this popular myth that nobody knew smoking was bad for you until the 1960s. My dad would laugh at this, saying when he was a boy (1930's) his fellows called them "coffin nails". Doctors then always advised their patients to quit smoking. In the 1960s, I saw a smoker's lung on display in a bottle of formaldehyde. It was black and looked horribly diseased. Another non-smoker's lung was also there, it looked pink and normal. A doctor who ever saw a smoker's lung would have to be crazy to not conclude smoking was bad for your health. It wasn't exactly rocket science.

DiggyJohnson 4y ago

I think your friend was looking for any reason to not spend their time involved with an activist cause they don’t care about on a personal level. I have a theory that since this sentiment is difficult to put into words, where an individual is disinclined to just say “nah I don’t really care enough”, they reach for dubious sources that make them sound more ridiculous than if they stated their subjective opinion bluntly.

heresie-dabord 4y ago

> We are doomed as long as spreading intentional disinformation via manipulated masses, fabricated mostly by PR agencies and think tanks is not a crime. Not only is it not a crime to promote falsehood, lunacy, and propaganda, it is simply easier, more lucrative, and politcally useful for the media business to participate in the intellectual gerrymandering of a population. On this very topic, but from half a century ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(1976_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(1976_film)