3 ms·

I don’t understand that question. What system can distinguish lies from truth better than each person for themselves? To me, the question is more freedom of spe

• pixl97 3y ago
  >and likely would restrict the truth more than lies. Lies are infinite and the truth is not, so I see that to be logically impossible. You would filter far more lies by total number, but filter more truths per capita. In such a system that unlimited or otherwise near infinite lying is possible, the group with the most entropy to spend wins. I just keep you busy filtering bullshit to the point you have nothing else to do. The problem with lying at the end of the day is there has to be either a social or legal cost to the liar. If not, all communications turns to spam. Then people will go to industry or government to deal with the problem in one way or another. Free speech absolutists that ignore physics reject reality.
• 15457345234 3y ago
  > What system can distinguish lies from truth better than each person for themselves? The average person has effectively zero ability to distinguish truth from lies, in my experience. They simply go with either whatever they heard first or whatever fits their prejudices. So, I'd say that almost _any_ system of genuinely unbiased fact-checking would improve the outcome.