Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Gotisdabest t1_j6mf2xe wrote

>half the country fell for the lie

The fact that you state half the country is already rather telling. People believe bullshit lies they want to believe. That will always be true, with or without video. There is no extremely convincing misinformation. Once it becomes blatantly obvious that everything is false as opposed to the current climate where there's a debate to be had about the percentage of falsehood, the medium will simply become irrelevant. The weight behind it is that it comes from a trustworthy source to those people, not that it's organically based on some kind of proof.

>Gee.. Maybe it because they could actually rely on photographic, video, and audio evidence back in that era?

Yeah, the photographic video and audio evidence that was everywhere in all of the human history.

And people believed what trustworthy media told them, yeah. That had it's negatives but was all in all a functioning system that typically showed less cracks then the information system of today. These outlets will still exist and as i said before, likely get a lot more pushback for lies then in the current system, as a general standard of truth would arise from the common media standard. Opinion based media would be crushed under the weight of fact based media and an outlet reporting contradictory facts would quickly be singled out and discarded. Of course crazy conspiracy theories would still exist. It'd probably put a hard stop on dumbass conspiracy theories that are based on communities like Qanon since social media would by and large not be a thing.

1

BigZaddyZ3 t1_j6mfsfp wrote

No bruh… they believed in photographic evidence in those eras because there was no convincing way to manipulate those on a large scale. (especially the audio and video). That’s about to change soon.

Once we hit a point where video and audio can easily be faked, neither one will ever be believable again. You could just use the “it’s a deepfake argument” for everything. That wasn’t possible in those previous eras. So stop comparing the future to those eras. We are about enter a completely new era in history. We aren’t simply going back to the fucking 90s bruh. Lmao.

1

Gotisdabest t1_j6mgqy1 wrote

>they believed in photographic evidence in those eras because there was no convincing way to manipulate those on a large scale.

Again, are you trying to claim they believed in photographic evidence throughout all of human history.

>neither one will ever be believable again.

Not really. It just won't be believable from anonymous sources. When say, the NYT posts an article that Ukraine has blown up the Kerch bridge, it's much harder to just claim the photos are from some other incident then if some dude on reddit posts it. People already can claim anything they don't like is fake news, no matter the evidence behind it. Misinfo's strength is that most of info recieved in general from the same medium has to be credible and corroborated, or otherwise trustworthy. If nothing is trustworthy on the medium, the medium dies.

In non legal matters, people have always put more stock in individual trust and words rather than actual hard proof. Your own example on the election proved this where the people believing in the "hoax" idea lost dozens of court cases because they had no proof. They believe in it because someone they trust for whatever reason(despite him being a proven liar) said so.

Audio and video proof, which is rare anyways in most disputable cases , will become mostly contigent on the source. Like it mostly is today.

1

BigZaddyZ3 t1_j6mgyoz wrote

Lol we’ll just have to wait and see how it plays out I guess. Time will tell. There’s no point in continuing this any further in my opinion. Agree to disagree for now.

1

Gotisdabest t1_j6mh1zr wrote

That is true. I do agree that it isn't particularly long till the inciting incident occurs.

1