Yeah, and that’s my concern right now - I think going back ~10 years or so, the percentage of “poisoned” (and we’ll use that term as in a dataset or something - the percentage of values in this set that have been affected by the contaminant) people was a minority, in the 10-20% range (just throwing out numbers). That meant if the NYT or WaPo published something, as a nation, we could generally debate our values and opinions based on a common set of facts - the credibility of those institutions was high enough that if they asserted, for instance, that Paul Ryan wore a toupee, we’d be arguing whether or not the wearing of a toupee was worth caring about and what the proper response to the toupee was, not whether or not he actually wore a toupee.

My fear right now is the percentage of the population that’s “poisoned” is well over 50% - that more people than not distrust those types of institutions, which is sufficient to mean that we’re no longer arguing as a nation whether toupee-wearing fits into our national ideals or who we want to be as a people, and indeed we cannot have those debates, because for us to discuss our values or positions, they need to be in reference to some shared common set of facts, and there’s not a source of facts shared in common by enough of the population for us to be able to generate any kind of consensus worldview to even debate.

▲ godelski 4 days ago | parent [-]

Isn't the goal of disinformation campaigns to create a post truth era?

It's very hard to combat. I hope since HN has an at least above average intelligence userbase and familiarity with the internet that we'd be better at fighting this. I hope we don't give up the fight.

I think some advice I got from another academic about how to serve as a reviewer applies more broadly.

  It's easy to find flaws or critiques in a work. Your job as a reviewer isn't to help authors identify flaws, they are likely already aware. Your job is to determine if their flaws undermine their claims, even if their claims are accurate it's insufficient if not properly evidenced.

The point is that nothing is perfect. So the real question is if we're making progress to finding truth or if we're just being lazy or overly perfectionist. Or Feynman said something similar. (Not a precise quote) "the first rule is not to be fooled and you're the easiest person for you to fool"

▲

marcosdumay 4 days ago | parent [-]

> Isn't the goal of disinformation campaigns to create a post truth era?

I dunno, and I'm not sure if you are including the major newspapers on the campaigner or victim group... but it would help if they weren't caught in blatant lies all the time.

Gell-Mann amnesia stops working once people hear about the concept.

Anyway, if the NYT published something on the lines of "public person X says Y in public", that would have high odds of being true. But "cybersecurity issue X identified in country-the-us-doesn't-like-Y" is almost certainly bullshit and even if there is something there, the journalist doesn't know enough to get the story right.

	▲	godelski 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		It was a rhetorical question. I actually would really encourage you to read about post truth politics if you haven't because it ties into what you're discussing. I am including the major news organizations and I specifically think they're a major contributor to post truth. It can't happen without them. Being caught in lies enables post truth because the point of this strategy is to make it difficult to determine what truth is. To overload the populous. The strategy really comes out of Russia where they specifically would report lies such as Putin killing dissidents, only for those people to turn up alive. You encourage conspiracies. The most recent example I can think of is how Trump going offline for a few days lit the world with conspiracy theories about him dying. Fucking major news networks bought into that too! It's insane to operate like that. But that's the point. That you have to question everything. I guess to put it one way, you need to always be in system 2 thinking. But you can't always be operating at that level and when doing for long periods of time you'll end up with an anxiety disorder. I don't know if all major news networks are doing this intentionally or if it's a steady state solution optimization for engagement, but the result would be the same. I'm saying this because look at my main comments. I'm trying to encourage finding the truth of the matter rather than react (which is what the OP was (rightfully) criticizing WaPo for).