But these people all existed 10, 20, 30 years ago, they have existed and will continue to exist throughout humanity. You cannot fix stupid. What is the solution, to control 'The Message'?
I agree with the parent. I grew up on the 90s internet, where you didn't believe anything on it! Somewhere along the lines this changed (I blame 2007 -- the iPhone / huge numbers of people going online during this period), and that is the problem.
If we have an issue, it's that people take information on the internet as gospel, hopefully if there's so much absolute dogshit on it, it will make people skeptical again.
I fully agree they've existed since the dawn of communication. It's different now that it's near free and available to broadcast that idiocy to a billion people in an instant.
I'm not arguing the government should step in and massively regulate speech. I'm just saying I'm not exactly excited for where we're going on this ride. I think it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
> It's different now that it's near free and available to broadcast that idiocy to a billion people in an instant.
This doesn't matter, truth needs to travel but bullshit can be made up on the spot. Internet is way more beneficial for the truth, I talked to people before they used the internet and it was bullshit all over back then as well but there was no truth around to contradict them so maybe it wasn't as obvious. But today you can easily find out thanks to the internet.
If it's irrelevant why does it seem there's far more flat earthers and anti-vaccine people today than 40 years ago?
I do agree there are positives to the truth being more accessible. I don't need to go to the library or pay massive fees to access peer reviewed articles these days. I can collaborate with peers all over the world to search for the truth. This doesn't help when most of the popular web is actively pushing up falsehoods instead of the truth. And that's happening on a scale that's never before been possible.
There have been anti-vaccine communities since vaccines were created.
Honestly that part doesn't worry me. It's more about repeating the fascism of the 1930s that will drive people away from democracy right into the hands of authoritarians because the world turns into a post-truth uncertain mess.
That's true. It's about scale and ease of access. You had to be part of some group. Now you can get the latest news about how the yab is part of the plandemic 24/7 from your buddies on the internet.
The fascism part is interesting. I think we're wholly unprepared to deal with it because we've forgotten about all the fascists at home during that time (assuming you're talking about the US). I doubt as many people know about the American Bund and Nazi rallies in Madison Square Garden as they do about D Day.
The question that we need to ask is "Will unlimited lies kill us faster than unlimited truth".
If we can avoid global warfare with unlimited truth/lies then what we are doing is fine.
If we cannot, then openness is a dead end. Democracy will vote in authoritarian leaders to attempt to overcome the ocean of lies and bullshit and we will destroy ourselves.
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 speech or less freedom of speech. At best retaining the existing restrictions would have a neutral impact on both, and likely would restrict the truth more than lies.
After all, the truth is often more quiet than a lie.
> 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.
>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.
I agree with the parent. I grew up on the 90s internet, where you didn't believe anything on it! Somewhere along the lines this changed (I blame 2007 -- the iPhone / huge numbers of people going online during this period), and that is the problem.
If we have an issue, it's that people take information on the internet as gospel, hopefully if there's so much absolute dogshit on it, it will make people skeptical again.