0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
I feel like this is the right channel to have this discussion.
@mazmhussain do you think we'll be able to find a solution to the "post-truth" situation we're in? I thought about it when I saw your cast about the meme with the UFOs, saying that ppl didn't even care when NSA confirmed UFOs are real, because they're bombarded with information.
I feel like the problem is not so much the "volume" than the "quality". We went from a state where "I saw it on TV= it's true" to "I don't trust anything I see/hear by default". Related to that, we seem to have internalized the fact that objectivity/neutrality doesn't exist, there's only partisan opinions. Even if there's some truth to it, I feel like it's a slippery slope, because it tends to put in the same bag journalists who, while having opinions, aim at neutrality, and journalist who don't care at all and go for full bias. It's a small nuance, but a very important one imo.
Happy to hear ppl's thoughts on this, and be pointed to thinkers who went over this matter. 4 replies
7 recasts
13 reactions
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Yeah I personally think web3 social was never about solving the post-truth issue. I hear many people talking about blockchain as a source of truth. This works for events literally happening onchain, like transactions, but for off-chain events happening onchain, it's still the same issue. I can still record a lie onchain, its onchain nature doesn't make it anymore true.
I think for a long time we have the illusion of truth, but the "truth" of truth, is that it's often gray, in-between, moving, subject to context and interpretations. But at the end of the day, we still need to come together, agree on the "most true" narrative, and move on. Not stay at a stall and entrenched in our echo chambers. 1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
