Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It's very expensive (a lot of work) to be so rigorous in verifying information. Forgoing trust is expensive, whether we're on this subject or talking about Proof of Work algorithms. It'd be great if we had trustworthy institutions who could distill the truth for us (hah!) but of course if such an institution accumulates public trust, that naturally makes them a target for capture by propagandists.



One of the points made in Manufacturing Consent is that it’s so much work to cut through everything and become well informed on a subject it’s a miracle if someone manages for one topic. It doesn’t matter if someone nobody is listening to publishes the truth for the more sophisticated propagandist.


> One of the points made in Manufacturing Consent is that it’s so much work to cut through everything and become well informed on a subject it’s a miracle if someone manages for one topic.

Sadly, the author of Manufacturing Consent became a great illustration of that point.


This is a genuinely fascinating[0] problem that's become more impactful with the ease of spreading messages and the importance of public opinion. I see both sides of it in how I want to believe[1] that I know truthful facts (which I attempt to accomplish with what I believe[1] to be healthy skepticism) and how effortful it can be to (attempt to[1]) achieve that.

[0] It feels a little wrong to say "fascinating" given the gruesome methods by which some choose to hold on to their control of information. It is nonetheless something which often captures my attention.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias So many possibilities!


Sadly there is practically no profit potential in solving this problem and capitalism has a tendency to drive it to ruin.

People will pay you - both directly and indirectly - to shift the opinions of others. That can be wildly profitable. People are reluctant to pay for access to informative and genuinely objective news and information, though.

It either gets treated as a public good that is nurtured with public money or strict rules (e.g. fairness doctrine) or the river of information gets filled up with toxic sludge that becomes fertile breeding ground even for flat earth conspiracies.


Thanks to very-forgiving laws on things like how accurate advertising has to be, and tolerance for pages and pages of legal terms required to engage in so many common activities, in the US the average citizen has so much to worry about just in terms of "am I going to get ripped off if I buy this / sign this contract" that there's gonna be even less available mental energy or care to give to "is this person making sense in their interpretation of the news" and such.


I think a lot of that is a description of what journalism is and should be.


Someone with 99 percentile writing ability on the internet says everyone else should be as proficient with the written language as them.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

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

Search: