3 ms·

> The technology hasn't changing anything. I think this is completely wrong. It's now at massive scale, and you are much more likely to be exposed to convinci

> The technology hasn't changing anything. I think this is completely wrong. It's now at massive scale, and you are much more likely to be exposed to convincing lies in a world where it's harder to understand what's actually going on. It's possible to live your entire life lying and get away with it because of improvements in living standards and the society we live in. I know quite a few people who are now living in a parallel reality as they've been exposed to specious nonsense and are indeed immersed in falsehoods. And they point to the volume of it as one of the reasons why these things must be true.

flangola7 4y ago
Imagine someone making the argument that email and messaging platforms don't change anything from when we had ink and quill scribes. Hey it's just sending a written message to someone, how could it make any mentionable difference?
pessimizer 4y ago
> It's now at massive scale, and you are much more likely to be exposed to convincing lies in a world where it's harder to understand what's actually going on. This premise isn't valid. The fact that there are a lot more messages going around (and we can safely assume a lot more lies in rough proportion) has no bearing in the likelihood that one is exposed to convincing lies. 1) The more lies, the less convincing each one will be. That's how markets work. Therefore, at some saturation of lies, none will be convincing, and your problem becomes one of discovering truths. 2) Entire societies can believe in a single convincing lie. 3) You don't even have to lie to create untruths. If I were going to have a poll test, as a first approximation I'd ask two questions: 1) Was Saddam Hussein one of the people who plotted 9/11, and 2) Did Russia hack voting machines in 2016, changing to totals to a Trump win? They're good examples of untruths that aren't lies; they were never the stated positions of any authority, instead they were intentionally incepted through FUD and vagaries. So more lies, fewer suckers, fewer lies, more suckers. And you can create lies without telling them.

flangola7 4y ago

Imagine someone making the argument that email and messaging platforms don't change anything from when we had ink and quill scribes. Hey it's just sending a written message to someone, how could it make any mentionable difference?

pessimizer 4y ago

> It's now at massive scale, and you are much more likely to be exposed to convincing lies in a world where it's harder to understand what's actually going on. This premise isn't valid. The fact that there are a lot more messages going around (and we can safely assume a lot more lies in rough proportion) has no bearing in the likelihood that one is exposed to convincing lies. 1) The more lies, the less convincing each one will be. That's how markets work. Therefore, at some saturation of lies, none will be convincing, and your problem becomes one of discovering truths. 2) Entire societies can believe in a single convincing lie. 3) You don't even have to lie to create untruths. If I were going to have a poll test, as a first approximation I'd ask two questions: 1) Was Saddam Hussein one of the people who plotted 9/11, and 2) Did Russia hack voting machines in 2016, changing to totals to a Trump win? They're good examples of untruths that aren't lies; they were never the stated positions of any authority, instead they were intentionally incepted through FUD and vagaries. So more lies, fewer suckers, fewer lies, more suckers. And you can create lies without telling them.