David RobertsI agree that "misinformation" is a somewhat narrow & misleading way to frame the problem, as though there are just bits of bad information mixed in the good stuff. In practical terms, the real problem is "lack of reliable, shared information sources."
The "shared" part is, IMO, even more important than the "accurate" part. A society can survive for a long time with everyone believing common myths, even if the myths are false, but it can't survive long with everyone believing their own custom-designed bespoke myths.
Basically, a functioning society needs trusted epistemic authorities. It's just not workable for everyone to be their own freelance truth finder, however attractive that romantic notion might be to some people.
Determining what's true is incredibly difficult! It requires time, a particular set of tools, institutions designed with safeguards, a culture & norms of collective inquiry, etc. We can't slough off all that work onto random individuals busy working & feeding their families. It doesn't work.
quixote@volts.wtf God, yes. I don't see why that's even been difficult for some people. Don't they remember middle school? Or at least high school? And how it works with loudmouths?
Jeff GriggI have thought that this is a weakness of complete "freedom of religion."
If religions are a source of moral values, as many claim, and one is free to have any religion, then what's to stop the most immoral of our society from creating or "shopping" for a "religion" that matches their immoral [lack of] values?
.
And it's not that observable facts, truth, and human empathy are completely arbitrary. And so it's not *completely* impossible to objectively judge.