3 ms·
Such agency will have hard time building trust (especially given it's a government agency - modern governments aren't particularly good at building trust), and
by drdaeman 2y ago
Such agency will have hard time building trust (especially given it's a government agency - modern governments aren't particularly good at building trust), and it could lose it all over a single honest mistake, or (as we're talking about conspiracies here) some sort of a poison pill dataset.
Neither does censorship, of course - if anything, it fuels the conspiracy.
What works is education, in general. The better the quality and versatility of education, the higher are the chances an alarm would ring in person's head when he reads some controversial statement. But quality education is an extremely hard and costly problem.
- kleton 2y agoThere exist several US federal bureaus, such as the census and labor statistics ones, that have built and maintained widespread trust in publishing accurate tabulations. It is not an impossible problem.
- drdaeman 2y ago> such as census Uh... There are plenty of people who seem to think census results are rigged in one way or another. E.g. I think I've seen that the infamous Heritage Foundation (I know, I know) has some beef with The Census bureau over some under-counting or something like that. If anything, I'd love to see more zero-trust approaches to government, where possible (voting, statistics, etc). No idea if that's going to work, but probably worth a try.
- consteval 2y agoThese are not widely trusted by the American public, at least in my own anecdotal experience. I've been told numerous times that the Bureau of Justice Statistics lies because they're the government. Typically, in relation to modern politics. From what I've seen, distrust for the government is at an all-time high, but trust in randos with podcasts is also at an all-time high.