A very interesting problem to solve. “Who determines truth? You do!” Based upon who we trust to know and relay these truths.
That’s the problem with fact checking. It leaves the “powers that be” in control to narrate what the truth is.
The only “real” solution I can come up with is that ultimately every individual needs to know and understand that truths generally don’t exist. There are usually multiple sides to every story. We need a mass awakening of more open thinking and researching into stories by many individuals. Individuals need access to unbiased information (looking at you google) so they can research multiple sides and hopefully can see for themselves who is trustworthy and who is really biased or just dumb.
The issue with “fact checking” is that it’s actually designed to erode that type of thinking. It’s designed to say “well these are indisputable facts” and the lazy (e.g. normal) user believes it even more. The reader, however, should still be thinking critically and be open to other interpretations. This can be so easily weaponized and it’s already happening on places like Facebook and Google.
Critical thinking is hard work and time consuming. Majority of people won’t bother with this. Social media/media exists to exploit this unsolvable problem.
Openness plays a significant role as well. Someone who has ulterior motives can derail a conversation pretending to dispute facts, or the topic at hand.
7 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 25.6 ms ] threadThat’s the problem with fact checking. It leaves the “powers that be” in control to narrate what the truth is.
The only “real” solution I can come up with is that ultimately every individual needs to know and understand that truths generally don’t exist. There are usually multiple sides to every story. We need a mass awakening of more open thinking and researching into stories by many individuals. Individuals need access to unbiased information (looking at you google) so they can research multiple sides and hopefully can see for themselves who is trustworthy and who is really biased or just dumb.
The issue with “fact checking” is that it’s actually designed to erode that type of thinking. It’s designed to say “well these are indisputable facts” and the lazy (e.g. normal) user believes it even more. The reader, however, should still be thinking critically and be open to other interpretations. This can be so easily weaponized and it’s already happening on places like Facebook and Google.
I've come to believe this goes for any verbal / written statements about reality.