Post

jscul
@jscul.dev

The truth will eventually prevail, but how you get to the truth of a question matters. And if you focus only on answering the question, the truth doesn't matter, only the consequences. i.e. a truth may be answered, but the damage of discovery costs more than the value of the truth.

jscul
@jscul.dev

This is the "game theory" of the "free market place of ideas". It's like questioning the legality of stop lights because they limit your freedoms. Coordination in a shared space requires rules to maximize efficiency. It's the "tragedy of the commons" of "free speech".

0 reposts2 likes

jscul
@jscul.dev

When pundits ask the wrong question, they are participating in a game. The game is a stop light, and they do not hesitate to run the red light. There are no consequences. In fact, they're often rewarded. Perverse incentive structures exist in every game.

jscul
@jscul.dev

To reward Player 2 with no punishment, while they routinely "tat" out of self-interest is akin to not punishing people for driving recklessly. See: "tit for tat" systems. The questions they ask serve their interests; e.g. shadow money from the Russian state funding "US influencers".

jscul
@jscul.dev

Bot nets plague certain networks. Pundits are also rewarded with views, likes, and algorithm boosting. These are all perverse incentives to "tat". This is what it means to live in a "post-truth era". In fact, the post-truth era could only ever exist with a "free market place of ideas".

jscul
@jscul.dev

Of course they'll say, "what, you don't like freedom of speech?", and ignore the fact that their "freedom of speech" exists inside of a game.