Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I would classify this (and much of the current discourse about mis/disinformation) as "not even wrong".

It's difficult for me to express my thoughts on the matter without writing a huge, unintelligible screed.

The author, like many others, considers misinformation a disease that can be cured by using authority to administer objective information.

I feel strongly that we no longer have any choice but to accept all information is based in trust. This is not meant to be a metaphysical statement. Perhaps at the metaphysical level, objective truth exists. Regardless, at the scale society needs to verify information, objectivity is inaccessible.

Consider how long it took Russel's Principia to add 1+1. For the claims we encounter in our everyday lives, an appeal to objectivity will only add another layer of obfuscation.

In the case of current crisis in the US, the government claims that the crisis is an attack by the Russians. Perhaps this is true on a superficial level, but the attack is only possible because sources of power in our society abuse that society's trust so heavily. This isn't only limited to the government, but the entire structure of power.

The Q conspiracy is on its face absurd and easily contradicted by reliable observations. Why do adherents engage in it? At some point when you're surrounded by lies on every side and no way to understand your environment, your brain just melts.

Unfortunately there is no sign that society will even stop digging itself into this hole.



> Unfortunately there is no sign that society will even stop digging itself into this hole.

I think that for things to change they will need to reach a breaking point. I hope and pray that we will be able to get through this breaking point and to the other side to a better civilization before some x-level threat destroys us.


Dear fellow HNers, this is some of the most dangerous rhetoric I've seen all week.

It's philosophically true that all information is based in trust. Yet, I should warn you that all trust is reliant on assumption. Thus, we end up in a paradoxically, revolving door-esque statement which has no end.

Please ignore this poor lad, this comment is unintelligible, and unreasonable... I'd honestly respect anyone who can seek the truth out for themselves.


I don't feel that I'm particularly unreasonable. I'm certainly interested in understanding your perspective.

I hope I'm not misinterpreting your statements, but it appears you agree that information is rooted in trust. In fact, you say it's philosophically so, while I make a weaker claim about practicality.

A paradox would arise if I were to say "information is based in trust, trust no one". But I would instead say "information is based in trust, empirically evaluate your basis for trust".

I'm not sure I recognize what's dangerous about the claim, or what your proposed alternative is.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: