Are we living in the age of info-determinism?
Growing skepticism toward traditional authorities, from governments to legacy media, is colliding with an information ecosystem where anyone—from YouTubers to AI systems—can sound authoritative. Commenters debate whether we are in a “post-truth” era or simply witnessing a shift in who gets to define truth, raising questions about the difference between facts, beliefs and moral truths, and about how societies function when shared baselines of knowledge erode. Many point to weakened trust in experts, the incentives and failures of journalism, and the overwhelming volume of low-quality or manipulative content as key drivers of today’s epistemic crisis.
Truth, Knowledge, and “Post‑Truth”
- Long debate over whether “truth” meaningfully exists beyond trivial facts.
- Several distinguish:
- Empirical truths (math, physics, “Biden is president”) as clearly true or false.
- Moral/existential truths (“rape is wrong”, “a life well lived”) as contested, non-universal, or socially constructed.
- Some argue there is only belief with varying probabilities; knowledge never reaches certainty. Others maintain truth exists even if no one believes it.
- Postmodern and Nietzschean arguments appear: “death of God” as loss of a shared reference point; symbols untethered from objective reality → “post-truth” as radical relativism.
- Counterpoint: saying “truth doesn’t exist” is self-defeating; some claim an ultimate religious truth, others reject that.
Societal Stability, Collapse, and Propaganda
- One view: a society that abandons truth, especially in science/technology, must eventually collapse or regress technologically.
- Others say there’s no clear evidence; authoritarian propaganda regimes can persist for decades.
- Distinction made between:
- Classic propaganda (single enforced narrative, e.g., wartime Japan).
- “Post‑truth” as plural, polarized narratives typical of democracies and useful for destabilization.
Authority, Experts, and Media Trust
- Thread repeatedly returns to loss of trust in “authoritative sources”:
- Past aura of journalistic professionalism vs. repeated failures, anonymous sourcing, and high-profile errors.
- Internet and bloggers/FOIA making it easier to catch experts and officials in lies or contradictions.
- Debate over whether distrust is healthy correction of elite power, or simple willful ignorance and “false authority” from YouTubers and influencers.
- Some propose stronger enforcement against harmful/illegal speech; others warn this can be weaponized by those in power.
Information Overload, Search, and AI
- Many note rising noise: harder to find precise, niche but factual data; search results increasingly generic, SEO‑optimized, or paywalled.
- “Authoritative” is seen as partly a social construct; criteria for recognizing it are unclear and time-consuming to apply.
- Brandolini’s law is cited: it’s much cheaper to produce bullshit than to refute it; weaponized via books, videos, and online content.
- AI is viewed both as:
- Potential replacement for traditional search.
- New amplifier of convincing but wrong information and large-scale manipulation.
Info‑Determinism and Technology
- One perspective: we’re locked into technological determinism—if some actors pursue faster, more powerful tech, everyone must follow to stay competitive; opting out is nearly impossible except in tightly bounded cultures.
- Others emphasize that this is not inevitable but heavily shaped by power and incentives.
Harari, Intellectual Authority, and the Article’s Framing
- Mixed views on Harari: engaging stylist, but criticized as a kind of “pop expert” outside his formal specialty; defenders argue cross-disciplinary synthesis is legitimate.
- Several see the article as written from a statist/elite vantage point:
- Nostalgic for mass media and centralized narrative control.
- Too quick to equate rejection of authority with rejection of knowledge.
- Underestimates how many genuine ideas and projects emerge online without state mediation.