Once you could count on some things posted online probably being true because, well, why would anyone bother to put out misinformation about a topic so obscure or uncontroversial? now the simple fact that someone might want to know a bit of information makes it worth faking if it can get their eyeballs on an ad— or improve the search ranking for some company. The harmless act of *being curious* about the world causes misinformation to spring to life. We have made wanting to learn destructive.
Some day soon a child will ask “what is the smallest ant in the world?” and discover that, unless they want to become an expert they simply can’t know.
This is the death of polymaths— a hurdle for interdisciplinary learning— and a return to a kind of human gatekeeping for real information: you best ask someone qualified if you are not expert enough to tell on your own. (this was already true for contentious topics, but now it will be everything)
Edited 347d ago
@futurebird I think focusing on authoritative individuals has been and is going to be what matters. If I wanted to figure out the smallest ant at this point I'd go to Tom Scott to see if he has anything. Who also talked about 'why would anyone make up something harmless and random' in my favorite talk of his, There's no algorithm for truth. I feel like that talk is more relevant than ever, though his conclusion is becoming less and less viable (it's becoming really hard to judge things).
@norbipeti @futurebird it’s as if ranking content by the relative authority of others who endorse it by linking might work. We could call this PageRank and write a whitepaper about how it only works if the algorithm is deployed by a company that resists the allure of advertising money.