I mean, why not? Free speech means unlimited freedom to lie, right? To do otherwise would be surrender to an arbiter of truth.
This is just how it is going to be now. Every search and every set of YouTube recommendations will contain a thousand lies and one truth, and it's your fault if you can't identify the true one.
> Free speech means unlimited freedom to lie, right?
This has never been, and will never be true. Free speech has always had legal limitations. It’s illegal to defame someone, for example.
Who really wants to live in a world where it’s so much easier and effective to lie than to tell the truth? Where the burden of seeking the truth becomes finding a needle in a haystack, do you want to live in that world?
History has shown us when societies fail to recognize the truth, and it has only ever brought death and destruction.
If the freedom to spread lies far and wide without repercussions overpowers our society’s ability to function, we’re in for some deep trouble.
We are also experiencing a giant race to the lowest common denominator, fueled by social media. "Everyone lies, so what the hell".
The U.S. Government at the very top is infested now with habitual grifters and liars. Young people look at them, and go - it works for them, they are all rich.
"Rudy's new 20 year-old spokeswoman hasn't finished college, pretended to be related to George Allen, and has given herself many titles that are not accurate. “Nobody can figure out who the eff she is or how she got in there,” a friend of Giuliani told me."
I wouldn't describe either FDR or Eisenhower as grifters. Carter was very big on integrity. Difficult to see Obama as a grifter either, although his honesty has been somewhat compromised by the forever war.
Sure, but it's done with some restraint and fear of consequences. With shame, if you will.
The new way is obvious, shameless, blatant, and unapologetic. "We run this bitch, what are YOU going to do about it". No?
I grew up in Ukraine in the most corrupt post-Soviet era. Even then corruption was done with finesse. A lush mansion is hidden from the view, and you really need to go looking for it.
Not the Steve Mnuchin level of "we are going to take a private jet to Fort Knox, watch the Solar eclipse on top of a pile of gold, and put it on Instagram" kind.
In fairness, previous generations of politicians didn't have Instagram. The history of Pulitzer and yellow journalism reveals an equally vapid culture.
From my view it is more of a wink into the camera. A whiff of self-irony and an acknowledgement of the farce. Shamelessly reveling in the spectacle while calling out the closeted prudes as hypocrites. Parodying stilted, cliched performances.
That's a good point, but the increased visibility should act as a deterrent. That's why it's not OK for a President to have a sidepiece anymore, when back in the day it was a matter of course.
All of us are more aware of what comes up when someone googles us, that we will be judged based on what's out there.
Or perhaps it's just the money. One does not have to be a good citizen if you are loaded. Social contracts and norms are for losers. And, since Trump assembled the richest cabinet in U.S. history, it only makes sense.
> Who really wants to live in a world where it’s so much easier and effective to lie than to tell the truth?
I don't think anyone wants that, but this has been the case since the invention of the printing press and probably longer. It also gets really tricky when what is a lie vs. what is truth is not obvious.
Someone is presumably making a handsome living by lying for the rich, so at least one person wants this. And there are people paying for this service, so clearly there are people who want to live in this kind of world.
It doesn't matter that this problem has existed forever. So has murder. Are you arguing that we shouldn't care about people murdering each other because it's a timeless problem?
I assume no.
It's not tricky at all when someone knowingly, intentionally pushes fake content at scale to sway public opinion. That's an unconscionable act with very clear and dark intentions. That shouldn't be "tricky" to assess, because we know very clearly that what they are doing is absolutely, unequivocally, wrong.
How about when news organizations intentionally leave out details to hint a particular theme that itself is a lie? For example, only reporting arguments from one side of a trial.
This depends entirely on jurisdiction, and even in the US (where there are no criminal defamation laws at the federal level) varies from state to state.
Much of Europe still have criminal defamation laws on the books, for example.
Even well-meaning folk can 'lie' when they repeat something demonstrably false that was said by someone that they trust.
People who are smart in some ways can get fished-in by scams & frauds if they don't have the street-smarts to 'smell a rat'.
'How it is going to be' is the way it has always been. Lots of stuff happened in US history that most people alive at the time were unaware of. Those in power counted on it.
We now have the means to look into statements -much- more deeply -and- quickly than anyone 30 years ago could have done ... if we know where to look. We have the tools, if we choose to use them. If not, then we'll live like the people of the past did ... pushed and shoved around by politics, religion, rumor, time.
This is just how it is going to be now. Every search and every set of YouTube recommendations will contain a thousand lies and one truth, and it's your fault if you can't identify the true one.