[mswtk]

Fundamentally, a lot of knowledge we possess as individuals is socially constructed, in the sense that we trust the process and the institutions that created it. Even if this knowledge can, in principle, be verified, it is usually impractical for an individual to do so.

Putting science aside, how can I be confident that the basic facts presented in, say, a NYT article, are correct? I can trust the reputation of the NYT as an institution, and I can also trust that any inaccuracies in the article will be called out by other publications. But if I feel everyone's in on a conspiracy to push a particular viewpoint, then I need to anchor my knowledge in a different institutional framework - even if that might just be a random Facebook group of strangers, or my weird uncle, or a niche radio station.

This, incidentally, is why the censorious push against "disinformation" is misguided in principle. It's sweeping the underlying problems under the rug in the hope that they disappear spontaneously. In an open society, truth can only be established as a result of public discourse, anything else is just the representation of the perspective and interests of some authority. Whatever its source, the seemingly growing distrust in public institutions will not disappear simply because we make social media companies remove its most obvious symptoms.

[forgotmypw17]

I think the problem you describe-- of being unsure of the origins and level of distortion of one's information on its journey between "reality" and "perception" is an old problem, which is rather quickly being solved by transparent technology.

It used to be that you had to trust the institution, because they were the best suited and capable to verify and validate the data and the individuals. Trust problems were both not publicized widely, and also did not have any obvious solutions.

Today, we are technically capable of validating and verifying the entire chain of custody or traversal for any given piece of information, and the only thing missing is the infrastructure to do so. On the other hand, if an institution demonstrates untrustworthiness, it is difficult to conceal.

I think that, more and more, we will demand to see the entire chain of creation and origin for a piece of information, and either validate it ourselves, or delegate that validation to a party we personally trust. That validation can then itself be validated with reputation.

Imagine, for a minute, if an article came with a list of all the writers, contributors, scientists, interviewees, editors, etc., who contributed to the article. And not only that, imagine you can see the entire social graph between you and those people. That is what the future looks like, IMO.