>>The average person is never going to understand what is true in any meaningful way, Agree, but this means we are talking about two different topics. I'm talk

>>The average person is never going to understand what is true in any meaningful way, Agree, but this means we are talking about two different topics. I'm talking at a functional level of truth; a base level of truths commonly understood in a society such that it can maintain cohesion. You're talking about deeply understood truths, like the 2+-hour discussion of quantum effects on the question of "why is the sky blue?" at a PhD's defense presentation. >> Conversation only happens when people realize they are working with a faulty model... what about when people actually have a good model, and a disinformation stream replaces that with a bad model, or causes them to just say 'nothing is true'? For your purposes of deep truth, sure, everyone knows almost nothing except maybe in their own tight discipline, so one noise level or another will make no difference. But at the level I'm talking about, common understanding of basic truths (the sky is blue, scattering, not a clue abt quantum effects), we are already seeing how increasing the noise level only by removing the Fairness Doctrine in broadcast media — society is significantly more fragmented. Automating and scaling those drivers of untruths is likely to accelerate the fragmentation.