Are we living in the age of info-determinism?

This happens because the so-called "authoritative sources" have lost their trustworthiness, creating a vacuum that is filled by new sources, some good and some bad.

The problem is, people are bad at thinking for themselves, and basically outsource their beliefs to third parties. Are we worse at this than we used to be, or has it always been like this?

We need more primary sources of information, and less filters trying to persuade us, who often have unseen agendas and different motivations.

The most ironic thing would be if this "post truth" situation we seem to be in drives people back to brick and mortar libraries.

People are too used to "having a platform" being a credential in and of itself. They wouldn't let just anyone be a TV News anchor or have a drive time talk radio show or write a book, right? There have always been snake oil salesmen, but what's unique about today is that it's very easy to make yourself look like Dan Rather or Barbara Walters or even Hunter S. Thompson. Some people fall into this false authority trap.

Anecdotally, I find that older generations are more willing to accept what they see online just because it is "published" online. Hopefully this is something that works itself out as more and more people grow up with these platforms.

The opposite is a problem too when authoritative sources on X topic start to talk about Y topic as if they still have the same knowledge and expertise and we should trust them. I see this more and more everywhere, here on HN too.

How many times have you believed and old wives tale, but then found out it’s not true at all? Now apply that less to specific beliefs but more generally, and scale it across all your beliefs.

His training is in medieval military history. He is not an anthropologist. Yet he is always make grand pronouncements about human behavior.

Most of his fame is not due to his academic achievements but because he can write very engaging popular works. Harari has a lot more in common with a popular YouTube “expert” than he would care to admit.

You can learn more about the deranged minds of CIA officers and "public intellectuals" from the backgrounds of their arguments than you can from taking them at face value.

These people are _completely afraid_ of living in a world which does not require their permission or ideology in order to function. This article is written entirely from the "state" point of view and completely lacks any "humanity" whatsoever.

> And yet, “the public opposes, but does not propose.” Demolishing ideas is easy in a subreddit; crafting new ones there is mostly beside the point.

Give me a break. Tons of new ideas and new systems and new projects have been created on the internet using precisely this mechanism and with zero government authority involved. This is a completely ridiculous assertion by the article.

> How can a society function when the rejection of knowledge becomes a political act?

Is it the rejection of knowledge or simply the rejection of authority? Perhaps people expect those in authority to actually explain themselves, to act in a transparent manner, and to not use their power to unfairly benefit one group over another.

> But democracy on a mass scale depends on mass institutions—mass media, mass education, mass culture—that seem likely to fracture or mutate with the arrival of A.I. The forms of government that flourished in one info-epoch may not thrive in the next.

I'm sorry, but what a total crock of shit, this idea that "mass anything" is somehow _required_ for "mass democracy" to function, or even that "mass democracy" is something experienced in any of our governments.

It really sounds like these people want to diminish humanity at all costs, in favor of AI, so they can regain control of our information space, and have the ability to manipulate the entire world en masse and without any oversight or responsibility for it.

I'm completely grossed out by this article and the people within it.

The signal/noise ratio it's not a new thing of course, but the real problem is mean (absence of) culture not information per se.

Currently, we have built our systems so strongly that we practically develop technologically deterministically. Can we help but develop new computer security technology? No. Can we decide NOT to make computers faster, even if making new technology constantly requires the unsustainable extraction of raw materials and is polluting the entire planet? No, because SOMEONE will make their computer faster, so we call have to do so to keep up.

Our modern society is so intertwined, that we cannot make decisions at ALL on which technologies to develop and which technologies not too. The Amish do it, because they have some foresight into it social impact, and because they've structured their society to place their way of life ABOVE that of technology. But the outside world IS technology now, and we are but cells in the new amalgamation of humanity and machine and we can no longer do anything about it...

...that is, until someone starts a revolution and destroys it.

It cannot.

Living in a "post-truth" society is just a sanitized way of saying living in a society without truth. Such a society must inevitably collapse.

Which, yeah. Of course it is, and that's a great thing. Sure, we get some fringe communities but on the whole we get so many more communities of people who want to help each other.

If you think we're suddenly "worse" then you're probably too used to your alleged set of beliefs being spread and shared by the major narrative setters and you were too comfortable in that echo chamber.

But hey, it's easier to call anyone who thinks differently some name (Today it's customary to rail against the evil right, in "the west" but your mileage may vary) and write "insightful articles" about post truth eras and the like.