4 ms·

The world would, without a doubt, be a better place if politicians, news organizations, influencers/celebrities, etc. did not lie to the masses. It would also

The world would, without a doubt, be a better place if politicians, news organizations, influencers/celebrities, etc. did not lie to the masses. It would also likely be a much quieter place, in that some of these entities would not be able to produce so much content due to the need to corroborate before posting, printing or opening their mouths. Some would be silent, because a lot of these people are truly ignorant about a wide range of subjects and are in the business of disseminating outrage for clicks and eyeballs rather than informing their audience. In the US in particular, freedom of speech and freedom of the press have devolved into being able to go as far as mounting massive campaigns, based on lies, used to destroy people. This has happened to people from all walks of life, from politicians to random people targeted by the mobs. The media, politicians and people with enough followers on social media have done this; examples abound. This is objectively wrong. I cannot imagine anyone with a modicum of decency and moral standards actually believing it is OK to have these elements in society behave in such ways. This is objectively detrimental for society. Of course, the difficulties come in when we try to define truth. In some cases there is no such thing as an absolute truth. Do we not speak about such matters? Or do we require a strong disclaimer to be issued with as much visibility and impact as the statements being made? De we add an "open source" requirement for news organizations? In other words, they would be legally required to publish the research and sources used in order to confirm the veracity of a story. Is that sensible? I don't know. In the US politicians are legally protected when they lie to the masses. A politician can say anything they want about the economy, crime, education, war and peace and their opponents, lie about all of it and have no legal exposure to the consequences of such lies. A politician can say that a proposed bill is about X when, in reality, it is about Y. This, again, is objectively wrong, and yet we don't seem interested in doing anything about it. It goes without saying that social media is a deep dark hole full of lies and manipulative content. Again, objectively terrible for society. Sadly, fixing this problem is nearly impossible. As easy as it might be to state what kinds of behaviors are objectively wrong, designing an equitable solution that protects the important aspects of free speech isn't as easy as it may sound. When it comes to the press, it is my opinion that they should not be allowed to print anything that they have not confirmed to be truthful within a reasonable margin of error. As an example everyone would be familiar with, if a news organization is going to, day after day, claim that the US president is a foreign agent, they would have to be able to corroborate this with solid evidence and research or suffer severe consequences. If they are going to point to an individual and claim them to be racist or a member of a cult, etc., same thing. There ought to be a reasonable threshold --which can be somewhat fuzzy-- for mass media organizations to engage in some of the carpet bombing campaigns that have become all too familiar these days. The latest one is against Tulsi Gabbard, who, after announcing she is leaving her political party, is now the target of all manner of attacks from multiple angles, including such things as saying she is a member of a cult. I use this example because it is very fresh, quite literally the last few days. However one might feel about her and her political views, here's what reveals this event as a politically-motivated smear campaign: If the things being said about her were true and the motivation behind the dissemination was an honest effort to inform the public, these stories would have been newsworthy before she left her political party. If she is, in fact, a member of a cult, this would have been important for voters to know two years ago. Yet, that's not the case. The attacks are politically motivated and likely lies and fabrications. They are deployed en-masse when a person goes from being silent or a member of the club to being viewed as a political enemy. That, in a nutshell, is what's wrong. These things are legally-protected smear and destruction campaign. They should not be allowed by law. Which is, of course, easier said than done.

endominus 4y ago
Let me start by saying that I agree with you on the whole and with most particulars. Being a contrarian, however, please indulge me in my attempt to steelman an opposing view; the ancient fascination with the Noble Lie. It's present as far back as Plato's Republic; the idea that an accurate communication of truth is not ideal for the preservation of a society. Rather, he advocated for the guardians and rulers of the city - and, let us not forget, therefore the conscious mind in his allegory - be taught untruth. That their nature is such-and-such, and therefore society is the way that it is. Obviously to modern sensibilities, the actual content of the lie that he proposes, and the society he describes, are abhorrent, but the idea that falsehood is more useful in binding a group together than truth remains poignant. The Noble Lie underpins our ideas of the values of myths, legends, and even shared culture ("If you want to build a boat, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea."). In modern times, in comes in the form of the American Dream, of the idea that a superorganism like a government or non-profit or corporation could "stand" for any values conceivable or desirable by the mere humans that make them up. It is the grease in the gears that allow modern developed societies to function as efficiently as they do. For example, to believe that it is abnormal, unusual, even evil to be corrupt is to bind oneself tightly to more proper behavior. As one learns more of widespread and open corruption, it becomes easier to justify taking part oneself, until one's pulchritude turns from admirable moral steadfastness to comical adherence to obsoleted ideals. The breakdown of social order begins with the dissolution of the lies that bind people together past Dunbar's Number, into a collective that believes, even if faintly and insincerely, that each other member is as deserving of happiness and success as they. I propose that if people believe that their society is fair, just, and truthful, they will act as if it were so, and the good among them make it so. Those inclined to their own good above the good of their kin and kindred will, of course, be able to abuse such trust to great advantage, requiring controls as you've pointed out to identify such proclivities and deter the individuals or contain their damage. Mark that; it is a failing of a high-trust society (such as America's) that they are vulnerable to psychopaths. In this, we find the argument for allowing leaders to lie to their people. To tell the unvarnished truth rips away the polite lie that society works for their benefit and in so doing makes the most extreme failures of that mode possible. It makes fools of honest people by exposing how foolish honesty can be. Lie, and say that soldiers will never be forgotten, their sacrifices necessary. Lie, and say that your vote and voice matter, that your citizenship carries sacred duties. Lie, and say that the moral arc of your culture is righteous, and that in the end all shall receive their just rewards. Lie, and allow the world to spin one day longer. And I can see the counterargument that this is equivalent to dealing with a rotting foundation by painting over the cracks and the mold and claiming that everything is fine, of standing in the burning room and denying the heat. I disagree with that assessment. Humans have the ability to become as they aspire to be. Surround a man with fools and it will not take long for him to begin to act foolishly to fit in with his peers. Take that same man and give him the company of the wise, and he will strive to become like them. The same is true for societies. Humans take more notice of their losses than their gains. They pay more attention to threats and insults than gifts and compliments. Tell a man of his 99 admirable qualities and one deficiency, and see which statement he remembers better! By this failure we see the problem of the strict truth; the quickest, surest path to individual success is, most often, one that betrays the ideals of your society. Unable to disguise that fact, the intelligent soon realize that honor, justice, equality, and all other good and noble things your society strives for are chains that bind them to failure. When all realize this, society is lost.

endominus 4y ago

Let me start by saying that I agree with you on the whole and with most particulars. Being a contrarian, however, please indulge me in my attempt to steelman an opposing view; the ancient fascination with the Noble Lie. It's present as far back as Plato's Republic; the idea that an accurate communication of truth is not ideal for the preservation of a society. Rather, he advocated for the guardians and rulers of the city - and, let us not forget, therefore the conscious mind in his allegory - be taught untruth. That their nature is such-and-such, and therefore society is the way that it is. Obviously to modern sensibilities, the actual content of the lie that he proposes, and the society he describes, are abhorrent, but the idea that falsehood is more useful in binding a group together than truth remains poignant. The Noble Lie underpins our ideas of the values of myths, legends, and even shared culture ("If you want to build a boat, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea."). In modern times, in comes in the form of the American Dream, of the idea that a superorganism like a government or non-profit or corporation could "stand" for any values conceivable or desirable by the mere humans that make them up. It is the grease in the gears that allow modern developed societies to function as efficiently as they do. For example, to believe that it is abnormal, unusual, even evil to be corrupt is to bind oneself tightly to more proper behavior. As one learns more of widespread and open corruption, it becomes easier to justify taking part oneself, until one's pulchritude turns from admirable moral steadfastness to comical adherence to obsoleted ideals. The breakdown of social order begins with the dissolution of the lies that bind people together past Dunbar's Number, into a collective that believes, even if faintly and insincerely, that each other member is as deserving of happiness and success as they. I propose that if people believe that their society is fair, just, and truthful, they will act as if it were so, and the good among them make it so. Those inclined to their own good above the good of their kin and kindred will, of course, be able to abuse such trust to great advantage, requiring controls as you've pointed out to identify such proclivities and deter the individuals or contain their damage. Mark that; it is a failing of a high-trust society (such as America's) that they are vulnerable to psychopaths. In this, we find the argument for allowing leaders to lie to their people. To tell the unvarnished truth rips away the polite lie that society works for their benefit and in so doing makes the most extreme failures of that mode possible. It makes fools of honest people by exposing how foolish honesty can be. Lie, and say that soldiers will never be forgotten, their sacrifices necessary. Lie, and say that your vote and voice matter, that your citizenship carries sacred duties. Lie, and say that the moral arc of your culture is righteous, and that in the end all shall receive their just rewards. Lie, and allow the world to spin one day longer. And I can see the counterargument that this is equivalent to dealing with a rotting foundation by painting over the cracks and the mold and claiming that everything is fine, of standing in the burning room and denying the heat. I disagree with that assessment. Humans have the ability to become as they aspire to be. Surround a man with fools and it will not take long for him to begin to act foolishly to fit in with his peers. Take that same man and give him the company of the wise, and he will strive to become like them. The same is true for societies. Humans take more notice of their losses than their gains. They pay more attention to threats and insults than gifts and compliments. Tell a man of his 99 admirable qualities and one deficiency, and see which statement he remembers better! By this failure we see the problem of the strict truth; the quickest, surest path to individual success is, most often, one that betrays the ideals of your society. Unable to disguise that fact, the intelligent soon realize that honor, justice, equality, and all other good and noble things your society strives for are chains that bind them to failure. When all realize this, society is lost.