3 ms·

The FedGov is an interested actor in the dissemination of information and is therefore not fit for task on arbitrating on incorrect or inaccurate information. I

by SllX 4y ago

The FedGov is an interested actor in the dissemination of information and is therefore not fit for task on arbitrating on incorrect or inaccurate information. It can be a source of information, but it cannot be trusted as an uncompetitive source. If you are interested in accurate and correct information, it is procedurally discovered in a competitive information environment with multiple interested actors; not decreed by the President and his employees.

marmadukester39 4y ago
Or it isn’t, because “discovered” doesn’t apply to most participants, who are only exposed to a narrative and likely never see followup.
- SllX 4y ago
  Why does it surprise you that people with more interest in getting accurate information are going to be the ones with more accurate information? If information doesn’t have value to you, you’re not going to pay for it.
  - marmadukester39 4y ago
    No, you wont. You are right. And in a democracy, eventually your rights will be curtailed by those who can’t afford or don’t know to spend that time and money.
Eleison23 4y ago
It used to be that the State had an established Religion that worked with the state to establish Truth and its boundaries. Therefore the Spanish Inquisition was not merely a religious event but a State event, where heretics were considered seditious or treasonous, and thus handed over to the State to be dealt with before it could be destabilized by dangerous thoughts, words, and actions. Now what do we do about Truth in this age of disestablishmentarianism? There is no one Religion of the State, and therefore there is no one Truth, there is a Plurality of Truths. That seems to present an existential problem for arbiters of Truth within the borders of the State, doesn't it.
- SllX 4y ago
  Yep. It’s not that there was ever a Church that was ever fit for the task, but there were people who formed a Church which were powerful enough to impose their own truth. No human institution will ever be fit for the task, but we can maintain the process by maintaining a competitive information environment.

by SllX 4y ago

marmadukester39 4y ago

Or it isn’t, because “discovered” doesn’t apply to most participants, who are only exposed to a narrative and likely never see followup.

SllX 4y ago
Why does it surprise you that people with more interest in getting accurate information are going to be the ones with more accurate information? If information doesn’t have value to you, you’re not going to pay for it.
- marmadukester39 4y ago
  No, you wont. You are right. And in a democracy, eventually your rights will be curtailed by those who can’t afford or don’t know to spend that time and money.

Eleison23 4y ago

It used to be that the State had an established Religion that worked with the state to establish Truth and its boundaries. Therefore the Spanish Inquisition was not merely a religious event but a State event, where heretics were considered seditious or treasonous, and thus handed over to the State to be dealt with before it could be destabilized by dangerous thoughts, words, and actions. Now what do we do about Truth in this age of disestablishmentarianism? There is no one Religion of the State, and therefore there is no one Truth, there is a Plurality of Truths. That seems to present an existential problem for arbiters of Truth within the borders of the State, doesn't it.

SllX 4y ago
Yep. It’s not that there was ever a Church that was ever fit for the task, but there were people who formed a Church which were powerful enough to impose their own truth. No human institution will ever be fit for the task, but we can maintain the process by maintaining a competitive information environment.