this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)

Socialism

2850 readers
1 users here now

Beehaw's community for socialists, communists, anarchists, and non-authoritarian leftists (this means anti-capitalists) of all stripes. A place for all leftist and labor news and discussion, as long as you're nice about it.

Non-socialists are welcome to come to learn, though it's hard to get to in-depth discussions if the community is constantly fighting over the basics. We ask that non-socialists please be respectful and try not to turn this into a "left vs right" debate forum by asking leading questions or by trying to draw others into a fight.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
OneRedFox@beehaw.org
3
How Can We Trust What We See? (www.currentaffairs.org)
submitted 1 year ago by OneRedFox@beehaw.org to c/socialism@beehaw.org
2 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The deepfake era threatens to further erode people’s ability to tell truth from lies, and bring cynicism and conspiracism to new levels. We can keep this from happening, but it will take the hard work of building trustworthy media institutions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] OneRedFox@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. Daniel Gilbert authored an interesting paper on how the human mind uses a Spinozan system, which basically means that comprehension and acceptance of information are tied at the knot, then people decide whether it's credible or whether to unaccept it; a consequence of this is that the deck is ultimately stacked in favor of accepting information in most cases.

Although suspension of belief is possible (Hasson, Simmons, & Todorov, 2005; Schul, Mayo, & Burnstein, 2008), it seems to require a high degree of attention, considerable implausibility of the message, or high levels of distrust at the time the message is received. So, in most situations, the deck is stacked in favor of accepting information rather than rejecting it, provided there are no salient markers that call the speaker’s intention of cooperative conversation into question. Going beyond this default of acceptance requires additional motivation and cognitive resources: If the topic is not very important to you, or you have other things on your mind, misinformation will likely slip in.