It's like thinking beyond today is impossible and that using logic to predict behavior is akin to being a conspiracy theorist.
Some now popular conclusions around AI were flagged comments ~3 months ago.
No wonder software is so terrible today.
Look at how the "Wuhan lab leak theory" was flagged and buried, how it took Jon Stewart to voice it and take a lot of heat before anyone paid any attention, and now it's mainstream and the Federal government is supposedly officially investigating it. https://nypost.com/2023/02/28/jon-stewart-recalls-outrage-af...
Sometimes governments use it to gaslight everyone: https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/how-jimmy-carter-...
On HN, the orthodoxy was that you shall not talk about everyday causes of depression or ADD. But then in 2022 we had this meta analysis that found no evidence supporting the serotonin theory and SSRIs: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/07/220720080145.h...
Now it's OK to talk about it, whereas before it was not. So now we have a lot of taboos to talk about overdiagnosis of ADHD and gender dysphoria, talking about the DSM V criteria etc: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/feb/04/adhd-diet-fo...
So yes.. right now the thing is to hate on Web3 and to do strawmen like "how will it fix AI". It won't fix AI, it's just that Web3 may be roughly a zero-sum game for society, or at least not nearly as negative-sum as AI.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
As much as you're entirely right that HN's readership decides what succeeds or not, pretty much every example you've furnished is defined clearly as "off topic" submissions. The Wuhan lab leak theory, regardless of how we view it in hindsight, was paraded as a sensational event up and down party lines. It never had a chance on this site, like Donald Trump drama or "Ask HN: What did you think of Kardashians last night?". Maybe it is relevant - but framing it sensationally is like toxic waste to this site's readers.
> the orthodoxy was that you shall not talk about everyday causes of depression or ADD
> So now we have a lot of taboos to talk about overdiagnosis of ADHD and gender dysphoria, talking about the DSM V criteria
They're not taboo. They're just not appropriate conversation topics for a hacking/finance website. The few times that it has become a big discussion topic has been through the lens of engineering lifestyles and personal experience. Even that is arguably too sappy for a non-Reddit website.
> Now it's OK to talk about it
> So yes.. right now the thing is to hate on Web3
Very subtle foreshadowing - you almost make it sound like Web3 has a second chance or something.
Truth is, like I said at the beginning - HN chooses what they want to hear. Most websites that give their users any degree of control over their experience let this happen (see Twitter, where users block the verified users). If you demand engagement on a topic nobody cares about, it stands to reason that you'll feel repeatedly disappointed by this website.
I think it absolutely is relevant, given that the conversation itself was about changing narratives.
> you almost make it sound like Web3 has a second chance or something.
This thread itself, is one of the rare ones where bringing up web3 actually is relevant, yes. It is reasonable for him to make that argument, because the topic is literally about how to authenticate things when you have an opposing central authority.
> If you demand engagement on a topic nobody cares about
His point wasn't about engagement. Instead his point was about how unpopular opinions are being proved correct, and that people were way to quick to dismiss ideas.
His point was that people should be able to look ahead, into the future, instead of immediately dismissing things out of hand, just because the thing isn't directly effecting the world right now.
IE, if you were downvoting/disagreeing with opinions about how AI is going to make it hard to authenticate information online, then you were wrong and were way to quick to dismiss an opinion out of hand.
I mean, it's a stretch. I could use that stretching metaphor as an excuse to talk about taffy for 4 paragraphs, but it doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the conversation. Scrounging up discussion about Web3 on an Indian government exposé is off-topic, and readers will flag it. It's equally substantial as those "this is good for Bitcoin" posts that get flagged under every article about a government treasury.
> the topic is literally about how to authenticate things when you have an opposing central authority.
If so, his flagged post didn't reflect it. It was a vapid comment that made no attempt to reconcile either topic.
> his point was about how unpopular opinions are being proved correct
If you want to argue that the Blockchain could have prevented this from happening, then by all means - write that comment. But that's not what his flagged post was. It detracted from the conversation and quite literally read as flamebait.
> if you were downvoting/disagreeing with opinions about how AI is going to make it hard to authenticate information online, then you were wrong
Spoilers: it has been hard to authenticate information online for as long as the internet has been around. In fact, the most significant events are corroborated with real life occurrences that challenge these lies. These women can attest that they did not do this in the photo. If government officials insist that the version with them smiling is the true master copy, then you're the fool for believing them.
I'm baffled that this is even being used as a platform to discuss Web3, a collection of technologies mostly reputed for... being manipulated and exploited by bad actors that cannot be incentivized to stop.
It really isn't. Because it is one of the normally very rare use cases for web 3 stuff, and the topic is directly about a case where such a thing would be needed.
> it has been hard to authenticate information online
That's nice and all. But the claim was that people were previously dismissing opinions about AI that are now mainstream.
So yes, you'd be wrong if you were outright dismissing these opinions about AI before, which are now popular.
And it is useful and interesting to point out how previous opinions that were dismissed out of hand, are now mainstream, using this situation as an example.
> a case where such a thing would be needed.
So... suggest a solution. What is your magical Blockchain panacea for this situation? To plug all digital cameras into an online ledger and hash every image? I'd love to hear a non-pipe-dream based idea for this.
> But the claim was that people were previously dismissing opinions about AI that are now mainstream.
This could be said about just about everything. I still dismiss the flying car, even though I was "proved wrong" in the 60s and 70s when some coked up engineers built one. I still dismiss cryptocurrency, even though many coins will outlive me. There is no world in my lifetime where cryptocurrency obsoletes the IMF. Betting against the powers that be is like playing chicken against a shotgun.
I am not sure if you read the rest of the comments and suggestions in this whole post, but multiple people did, over multiple discussion threads.
Feel free to go back and read them.
Also, it is still interesting and useful to suggest part of the solution, without writing dozens of pages on the exact specific details of it. Even just recommending crypto, is interesting enough, due to the fact that real usecases for crypto are so rare.
> This could be said about just about everything.
Ok, well in this case, related to AI, lots of people were wrong. And those people who were wrong, should figure out what mistake they made, to be so wrong, and why they were so quick to incorrectly dismiss these arguments.
Bombs have been around for a long time. What if everyone could have many, cheaply and easily? Why, since nothing happens with N of them, then 20,000 x N is just a little more of the same. And so what if the bots are now able to hold conversations and pass the Turing test 24x7 at scale? We have been able to hire humans to do that.
Except… no. That’s not how it works and you know it. Allowing anyone to deploy swarms of bots with superhuman memory, strategy, coordination, and now the ability to do many tasks with acceptable or good results at scale, is a game-changer and the question is whether it will make society better off.
The same questions asked of Web3’s downsides should be asked of AI. Not upsides, downsides. The fact that the guy in charge of safety at OpenAI says he thinks there’s a 20% chance of human extinction and you choose to shrug it off and focus on some other part — is the issue.
This isn’t just an academic discussion. It is like the people who profit off of coal and other things, regardless of their emissions or effect on people or climate. It matters and should be regulated.
Why was GP flagged? They made a good point.
The point was that Web3 was mildly zero-sum for society, while AI is shaping up to be massively negative-sum, as more people get access to it. It's like giving bombs to everybody and hoping no one will use them in bad ways. At least with nuclear bombs we knew who was enriching the plutonium. Here, everyone has access to weapons, to be used as they please.
The key to when things go bad is swarms. When HN is overrun with swarms of bots a few years from now, you'll remember reading this. Web3 by contrast is just an immutable ledger, its worst applications are convincing people to voluntarily put some money into a buggy smart contract.
Now they look more like prophets. That world is increasingly the world we live in. The question becomes, how can we stay sane in that world? How can we find enough actual truth (truth that is actually true, true in the old sense of corresponding to the reality of what is) in order to function? To function as individuals, and to function as a society? How do we deal with this?
I think the point of the postmodernists was that was always the world we live in, it's just that the Internet has made it much more visible and we can see the fraying and the contradictions. It's just that, for a fairly narrow window of time and societies, there was enough of an honor culture about being caught lying that the discourse-reality matched fairly well the actual reality. But even in the 20th century that required hiding a lot of perspectives, or only slowly and begrudgingly acknowledging them.
There's a distinction of degree but not of kind between "presenting the version of events most favourable to yourself" vs "presenting an entirely fictional version". I don't know how we get that back.
I’ve never considered the post-truth perspective as having anything to do with intentional misrepresentation, but rather relativism (which is dangerous in other ways, imho). Outright lying has been used by authoritarians, but it really seems like we need a term to describe societies controlled by blatant, obvious lies (which is where I would consider the US at the moment). People like to use fascism, Marxism, etc., but those used similar techniques, for very different ends.
Agitprop.
It's not just blatant, obvious lies. It's lies *designed to agitate people". I mean, the goal is "media engagement" (and secondarily, "political engagement"), but that comes downstream from getting everybody stirred up.
Edit: Literally took 5 minutes for the first downvote, despite not mentioning a single "issue". What's that old phrase? QED?
Live a little. Go ahead and drop your deep insights. The maximum downvote damage is -5 points here. You'll survive. I'll upvote you even if I disagree.
Again, this is just an example, not my personal agenda. What I want to point out is that we've normalized that there are a handful of forbidden topics that you will get punched for if you approach them with anything but a pre-formed opinion that matches the status quo.
Edit: And just as a turn of the screw, I'm going to say that the COVID vaccines are pretty shit compared to ones like smallpox, polio, and rabies vaccines, which actually (and sometimes retroactively) prevent you from getting the disease you were vaccinated against. Oh heck, I'm not allowed to say that thing that we all know. I mean if you take a high level view of it, they take the edge off the problem, but they still kind of suck.
Here we go, as requested:
https://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/16/world/europe/ukraine-cris...
> One voter, Grigory Illarionovich, told CNN, “I’m for restoring Crimea to Russia. Returning what Khrushchev took away.”
> Another voter in Perevalnoye, Viktor Savchenko, said he would never vote for the government in Kiev. “I want us to join Russia, and live like Russians, with all their rights,” he said.
> Victoria Khudyakova said she also had voted to join Russia, which she sees as being “spiritually close” to Crimea. “For me, Russia is an opportunity for our Crimea to develop, to bloom. And I believe that it will be so,” she said.
[...]
> CNN analyst and Russian journalist Vladimir Pozner similarly stressed that Sunday’s vote was in no way staged. “When you look at the celebrations, you can’t doubt that these people really are very happy,” he said.
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/06/591266939/how-people-in-crime...
> DEMID KUPAYEV: (Through interpreter) I witnessed how babushkas came up and said, thank God the time has come for Crimea to return to its historic homeland.
> KIM: Kupayev says international sanctions have made finding work in commercial shipping harder. But like many Crimeans, he calls economic hardship the acceptable price of joining Russia.
- Two dead, 23 wounded in a Russian strike on a Ukrainian medical clinic
- Ukraine secured military aid, including advanced fighter jets, at the G-7 summit
- Zelenskyy arrives at G-7 summit in Japan as leaders ramp up pressure on Russia
- Russia attacked the hometown of Ukraine's Eurovision band just before its performance
Fair and balanced reporting, right there. The first and last bullet points aren't at all the bald-faced examples of atrocity propaganda that we've just accepted as part of our daily feed.
Next, they're going to be raping nuns on tables[1] and throwing babies out of their incubators[2].
[1] http://www.telelib.com/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/prose/ComeingU...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony#:~:text=In%2....
I was expecting something controversial. :)
The counterargument of course is that the region was annexed by aggression, which is dangerous to legitimize. Letting the bullies win is a recipe for creating more and bigger bullies.
But sometimes there are no good answers. I don't know any trustworthy sources of information from that area (only expats and news reporting which are all various degrees of clueless and biased).
Avoiding inflicting war on a reluctant people sounds right. Restoring national sovereignty to a conquered people also sounds right. Impeding the spread of territorial aggression and natural resource theft also sounds right.
Personal opinion, pragmatic I think: You can't retake Crimea without obliterating Russia. You can't obliterate Russia without horrifying consequences. Don't retake Crimea, but draw a very clear and public line, and allow no concessions regarding the next Crimea (Ukraine). This turns out to be very close to the foreign policy of most of the world.
And Crimea is strategic. Look at a map. Without it, the Ukraine and its ports are always under threat from the whims of Russia.
It’s probably true that you can’t crush Russia without serious consequences. Unfortunately, you can’t let it win territory without very serious consequences either.
This follows its own tragic logic now and you (we) can’t wish for a nice solution that has no consequences down the line. Letting Russia off the hook is a terrible precedent.
We were asleep when Russia took Crimea, and unprepared to react with anything more than stern words. We were not ready for Putin. He obviously saw the opportunity, took the risk, and he won.
It would be tragic to return to a world where aggressive expansionism is the norm.
But fighting back through Crimea would be tragic also. And it's not clear we would have the support of the locals. That's courting disaster even before you contemplate that the opposing leader is mercurial and nuclear.
My opinion is that we have to take the L on Crimea, but make it clear that the world is not sleeping any more, and that Ukraine is not next on the menu.
Syria is an important example. US bluster doesn't carry much weight in the world these days.
But the situation in Ukraine is very different. It astonishes me that there's political disagreement on Russia's aggression toward neighbors, but if we fail Ukraine it will be squarely the fault of one group of people, and it will be incredibly damaging to US interests in the world.
Leaving Crimea to Russia is not just appeasement, it’s strategically unsound.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/15/why-crimea-is-...
(The Guardian is pretty much pro-Ukraine, pro-war in general.)
I'm not an immunologist or anything close to it, but I think we'd all agree that a better COVID vaccine would be better. This is obviously not controversial.
The COVID vaccines we have were measurably better than not having a COVID vaccine, and people had worse health outcomes if they believed (acted) otherwise.
Some narratives allow nuance and some do not. Public health communication is a very problematic place for nuance, and the natural nuance of science was weaponized to serve an agenda, so avoiding nuance became a pragmatic approach to achieving good things under emergency circumstances.
If you felt cancelled for holding out for the nuanced truth, I can sympathize with that feeling. I can also sympathize with those who believed that focusing on the nuance would kill people though!
I’m hoping at this point we can agree that the efficacy and function of the available vaccines was overstated and the pressure campaign to take it may have been some of the most intense propaganda inflicted on a western nation in recent memory.
The best information available was being provided by epidemiologists and doctors and statisticians and researchers. It was messy and contradictory and confusing sometimes, especially in the beginning. Like science.
Other information was being provided by politicians and radio hosts and religious figures and somebody's uncle. It was speculative and invented and delusional and manipulated and dishonest sometimes, according to the whims of famous personalities and media outlets. Like gossip.
Given those options, "trust the science" is a pretty reasonable message.
Not "trust the science to have all the answers immediately and with complete accuracy and no amendments", because that is not science.
More like "trust the science over the gossip".
But I take your point. People don't understand science, so it's very easy for them to feel betrayed when science does its usual messy science things.
And of course there were stochastic parrots on either side.
That said, the "trust the science" parrots had better health outcomes than the "impeach fauci" parrots. This seems unlikely to be a coincidence -- and as a blunt social influence tool, it's reasonable to conclude that "trust the science" was the better choice of intense propaganda, if not as persuasive as we all would have liked.
It's hard to find balanced discussion on something like the status of Crimea. Which is complicated - as you say the locals are largely Russian. Then again Russia signed an agreement recognising it as Ukrainian, then invaded and used it as a base to launch war on the rest of Ukraine which they show every intention of repeating if they can.
I think the internet has other effects like amplifying niche ideas.
If you were a conspiracy nut before the internet, your local friends will set you straight and either the conspiracy theories fade from your mind or they remain stagnant.
With the internet on the other hand, you can find other likeminded people, people who will accept your conspiracy theories and share their own which you will eagerly consume, and down the rabbit hole all of you will go.
It’s like a bunch of anorexic teen girls encouraging each other and sharing tips on how to starve and throw up. Very quickly you will have a bunch of dead kids.
That's really all that postmodern thought says really. Naturally, for a government to be right or wrong, requires that citizens be critical of it, almost actively antagonistic in their demands for reasons, evidence (be it empirical or otherwise) and clarification. Postmodern thought is a critical tool. So that's not that different than what we have right now (most of HN for instance is hyper-critical of nearly all government truth claims), only the demands on citizens are likely outpacing their resources and abilities.
It's not just "nothing is real", which is just intellectual laziness. It's noting that we always interpret the world; we can't avoid it. Ordinary interactions usually arrive at similar interpretations, but people have a remarkable way of being influenced in that judgment. And sometimes that can lead to some really bad outcomes. It's important to recognize that the potential is always there even in things that seem obvious.
(Lets call this approach digital villages for the sake of argument).
We have lots of examples of digital villages working - forums, subreddits, chatrooms, MUDs, etc etc. Maybe it's a case of worse is better? Or maybe everyone who implements web of trust immediately tries to jam crypto in there and turns off all the normal people? What do you think?
I tend to think lots of social spaces have been engineered by engineers, not people. The tech has been more important than the value it can bring in a human context. (Exaggerating for emphasis here, it’s not black and white but functionally true)
Big fan of the Six Idea’s (M.J. Adler) for meaningful life that is fairly universal: Truth, Goodness, and Beauty - the ideas we judge by; and Liberty, Equality and Justice - the ideas we act on.
I feel a food online social space should strive for high marks in these areas.
If it does, it will be our fault for not progressing fast enough in terms of knowledge.
There is no world in which we could, or would want to limit our growth in terms of scientific knowledge. Not to mention the fact that to do so would mean ceding full totalitarian control.
Even the concept of progress as a goal seems misguided and risky. We shouldn't assume something is better simply because it isn't what we had before. "Not worse than what we had before" is a great goal but one that requires effort and focus, it isn't a given law of the universe that all change is good simply because it's change.
Or we could try to progress everywhere, including in areas of safety from technological risk.
There will always be people looking at any advancement and figuring out how to leverage it to expand their personal capability to project power. Nothing is immune to it. Even primitives of decentralization can be leveraged in a way that defacto centralization is the inevitable outcome.
You don't research things that can't be centralized. You just don't centralize. The cost there though. Is then you have to accept certain things just ain't gonna happen.
Newcomers to the technology clamoring for it to be more centralized is a daily occurrence. It seems almost entropic, the push towards centralization. It seems to require constant effort to keep it decentralized.
True decentralization and censorship resistance requires taking the bad with the good. I'm the case of Mastodon, if I can't be censored for sharing my views on technology, politics, or sports then the person wishing to sharing illegal photographs of threats that may be illegal in some jurisdictions can't be censored either.
It raises the very interesting question of whether freedom of speech is an all our nothing concept. Very few people would support the idea of being able to say literally whatever you want, but can you really have freedom of speech at all if someone else gets to draw the bounds with which your speech much stay?
As we start to build trust economies (which really may only be the way forward), we have to start valuing integrity and discretion, or... as you say, all or nothing.
I think this has something to do with Jefferson's "the cornerstone of democracy rests on the foundation of an educated electorate", and maybe, just maybe why they insisted on educating it. I wish they'd have made it a constitutional right, along with the right to free speech.
(edit: Bing chat says, "It is true that some of the founding fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, were strong advocates of public education and believed that it was essential for a democratic society. However, they did not explicitly include it in the Constitution, perhaps because they faced opposition from other delegates who favored state sovereignty or feared federal interference. Or maybe they thought that it was implied by the preamble, which states that one of the purposes of the Constitution is to “promote the general welfare” of the people. In any case, the lack of a clear constitutional right to an education has left room for debate and controversy over the years, and has resulted in significant disparities and inequalities in the quality and accessibility of education across the nation."
We don’t give up on encryption when GPUs and ASICs and even quantum computers present a challenge, why should AI be any different.
(A "solution" which requires end users to authenticate everything themselves is going to have the same level of adoption as pgp, i.e. near zero)
Not to mention the inevitable abuse by whoever controls the keys.
And how do you solve the problem of a powerful entity telling you that the cropped image is authentic, or there will be consequences? People know what's going on, they bend for fear of breaking. No technology is changing that.
Powerful entity can tell you to install their root certificate just like it happens in China. This is a different problem.
Advertisers are going to want to postprocess images and have the green check.
You could of course fake green checkmark but this is already an issue with faking browser UI elements, including address bar–it’s a known problem.
One way to solve this is having a browser picker, that is a button you click in trusted area of browser UI that lets you inspect any image on the page. Similar thing is possible with smartphone UI, you go to app overview/carousel and long press on an image in app this launches photo inspection portal.
That's the opposite of what we should do. If you do case by case then people will always find reasons why it's no big deal if "their" side did it while it's really bad when the other side did it.
No, we need to universally condemn this. No matter who did it and when and how. This is lying and propaganda, and it's bad even if I agree with the ends. But the means are to be condemned by everybody.
Kind of the dual to "I disagree with what you are saying but I'll fight for your right to say it." It's now "I agree with what you are trying to achieve but I'll fight against the way in which you are trying to achieve it."
(1) a trusted application
(2) using a builtin device camera
(3) of a device running attested trusted operating system
(4) and any subsequent edits reference such photo’s original hash.
Hopefully stronger assertions could come in the future. This is just to combat digital forgeries and synthetically generated images. It also does nothing against real-world forgeries like actors wearing costumes or makeup.
If it is cropped, then it would not be provably authentic. So anyone seeing it, could see that it is modified.
> how do you solve the problem of a powerful entity telling you that the cropped image is authentic
Well, because you can check. You verify the image yourself, see that it is not authenticated, and then you know.
Not at all. I'm not sure what I said that makes you think that.
What I say, though, is that we don't know (either individually or as a society) how to operate in this new environment. It's making it hard to stay sane as an individual, and to stay functioning as a society.
Humanity is, after all, crawling out of at least the last 3000 years of recorded history of rulers telling everyone else how to live, like it or not.
We've only really been doing this democracy thing semi-successfully for a handful of centuries.
In the overall scheme of things, we're still pretty new at not being ordered around by people stronger than us. It's a hard habit to break on both sides.
Older photo is the real one.
Oh you now want a 360 degree shot to prove this didn't happen? Well then they stand behind a tree or a car or some other object to hide parts of the scene behind. etc. etc. There is no technical solution to this problem.
Not to me. They just look like another group claiming grand and sweeping theories of truth.
Social media companies notoriously blocked users from sending a story to each other in DMs a couple of years ago. It's not a stretch to go from there to deleting past messages in order to memory hole something. And the companies may not even be doing it by choice if they're being pressured by a government.
They can't do that if your data is yours and they can't read it, instead of the only copy being on their servers.
What someone like Herbert Marcuse would claim is that there is something like a "definite negation," or Jacques Derrida would call a "trace;" that is, there, sitting behind every signifier (of de Saussure's structural linguistics) its negation of another signifier that defines its position in an ordered chain or a symbolic network. They would not argue that things are relative; rather, social life is regulated by these vast signifying networks that one becomes "subjectivated" in (begins to understand oneself as a subject), where one's "agency" also stands at the limits of this intelligibility: as they say, everything you "decide" is already pre-conscious; every notion of what is "possible," is limited by what is already "intelligible," i.e. what operates in the social-symbolic function as it, like an algorithm, constantly moves and exchanges its various symbolic orderings in what we call the "economy." To be a true agent means to do something which radically restructures this network and radically redefines all its terms: Foucault's "fearless speech," Badiou's "Event." The latter thinker actually explicitly rejects relativism (and is in some ways a platonist--actually many so-called "postmodern" thinkers, Whitehead among them, are considered platonists.)
The position you claim is from "post-modernism":
>"claims of truth are just assertions of power"
finds its origins in Nietzsche, who famously claimed that truth, morality, beauty, etc. were invented by the weak because they feared the powerful and they were jealous of the fact that they couldn't kill their enemies, eat fully, and have sex all the time (Master Morality, which was just doing whatever you wanted). So they rose up, took over, and invented these categories and systems of valuation in order to justify a new regime of power where nobody was able to do what they wanted, and everything was regulated by vast systems of control justified by these metaphysical notions (he refers to this as "Christian Morality.") He claims that Christian morality, after centuries of struggle, has finally won out in the Bourgeois revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries, but now "God" has been subordinated to "Science" while retaining all the metaphysical baggage of christianity "truth, beauty, morality," etc. This is from Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals, the argument from which was expanded in Foucault's Discipline and Punishment (the most widely read book from what most people would call "postmodernism").
>truth that is actually true, true in the old sense of corresponding to the reality of what is
The so-called "correspondence theory of truth" is considered a fallacy of the layman in academic philosophy. Truth has always been, in logic, a category: a value, specifically a boolean value. One can make claims about the structure and order of logic and the relation of that to psychological, social-processes (as Frege, Husserl, and many other "anti-psychologists" of the 19th and 20th centuries did); but to claim that language, a signifying act, somehow directly corresponds to the physical objects that it categorizes, can't really be valid: as Shakespeare said "a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet." There is no reason why the words we use have any correspondence to experience--even if there is surely some reason why words can evoke experiences, emotions, like when one hears the name of a past-lover. But that can be attributed to what the "postmodernists" claim: the name evokes an entire symbolic structure and brings it to the surface of consciousness.
So in your understanding of academic philosophy, how do you account for the critical difference between the two statements below?
“Earth is flat.”
“Earth is a spheroid.”
I don’t see what is fallacious about accepting the second statement as corresponding to facts and dismissing the former for not corresponding. If it’s merely a matter of semantics regarding the words “correspondence” and “truth”, an alternative verbalisation of the critical distinction between those two statements must nonetheless be available; and it should be prioritised in discourse.
Perenially underappreciated in online discussions.
Very nice summary.
Basically I rely on my own observations and experiences: don't trust and verify, to adapt the old saying.
Second I limit myself to trusted sources of information and if I can't find one then I just don't get information on that topic: no information is better than false information.
In practice what this means is no algorithmic news feeds, I'm still looking for a good news source for my local city (haven't found one yet, I moved recently), I think a lot about incentive structures and how that might bias an information source, I (try) to apply skepticism to what I read, I block as much noise as possible (for example I don't pay attention to surface level political news because its all noise and virtually no signal), I focus on long term trends rather than "points" in the timeline.
This is far from perfect but its what has evolved as my approach over time.
Diversify your information sources.
Some doors were maybe better left unopened, we opened this one. Let's see how it goes.
A couple weeks ago when the Patriot Front had a white supremacist rally and march in front of the Washington Monument (now of the "red bike guy" fame), many prominent right wing Twitter talking heads tweeted that it must be a left wing conspiracy to make conservatives look bad and that the marchers were federal agents, despite 0 evidence of this, and indeed despite plenty of evidence that they were just actual Patriot Front members. It was difficult for me to tell if they actually believed that fairy tale, or of they felt that it didn't really matter because they knew if they shouted "fake news" loud enough they could get enough like minded people to upvote it.
It's a tactic to call everything a false flag, even your own ops. It requires virtually zero time, effort, or education to get everyone on your side doing it. Liberals fall for this trick frequently because they are obsessed with being seen to have to correct answer, so they invest for more effort in debunking than the liars did in making their claim.
Excuse me while my eyes roll into the back of my head.
Whether "liberal" or "conservative", some of us still care that facts matter. And honestly I would never have worried so much about calling out so much bullshit in the past until I saw so many of my fellow (voting) citizens actually believe this BS and take it to dangerous extremes. For example, when QAnon first came out, I just smiled a bit and laughed - "This doesn't even reach the level of bad fan fiction" I thought. Yet, lo and behold, significant swaths of the US population believe this, and I find that frightening.
I realized Qanon was going to be a problem from when it first appeared, but that's because I've spent about 20 years paying close attention to mis- and disinformation and political influence groups. What I'm pointing out here is that the time costs of lying vs debunking favor liars, especially when aggregated across communities.
I know my good good friend Conservative Fearless Leader will never let me go to jail or die of preventable disease or banish my rites when I want defending.
oops... too late. at least I didn't need to be right.
It's like "Chinese whisper". I can't count the number of times my partner tells me when I come home "have you heard, there is this horribly stupid law that is coming into effect next month". Then I check, and it's not a law, but a proposal, it hasn't been even accepted to be discussed yet and the details are completely different too.
I understand, not many smart people these days go into "traditional news reporting". It's a pity, because good news reporting is a prerequisite of a well functioning democratic society
It will only get worse, as revenue from traditional news drops they'll be more and more dssperate to make money the only way they can, by increasing the emotional load of the stuff they report. Everything has to be extreme, outraging, horrible etc.
It's certainly not the only source of error, but I find that the answer to my first question ("What, where did you read about that?") is almost always "Facebook".
It's become a running joke in my household. It turns out though that some people read news as entertainment, and don't really care if it's particularly true. This is probably fine, but it breaks down when the evoked response is outrage instead of a laugh.
Just do your best.
Think fake instagram accounts with images, coercing and shaming victims for personal revenge. Shady companies selling fake stories supported by fake pictures of "satisfied" users. Influencers and celebrities making themselves look younger, prettier, fuller.
you see anyone who wants to spin a web of lies, AI as a tool makes it easier, possible and in som cases unavoidable.