> 4han, reddit, and HN because they were humanity's only honest repositories
They are interesting, valuable records of humanity in the early 21st century, but they - and other social media - contain a higher volume of misinformation and disinformation than anything the world has seen, and I'd say a higher proportion than anything since (the Middle Ages? Hard to compare.). Think of the infinite conspiracy theories and just plain bad information on Reddit, for example.
> when I hear terms like misinformation and disinformation these days I think, "tell me you have a received ontology without telling me you have a received ontology."
I agree! That's the knee-jerk reaction from people caught up in the disinformation. There is truth, and we all have received ontologies - you've received yours from 4chan. The point of disinformation is not to persuade you about a lie, but to paralyze the public by taking away truth, discussion, consensus. You and I can't discuss any factual truth because of your ontology.
> what people said when they felt they could express themselves honestly
If they agreed with the 4chan (etc) received ontology. For example, what I wrote would get the same reaction you gave me, though much more aggressively and dismissively. People were only honest as far as it agreed with the ontology; beyond that they lied or went someplace else.
> humor is a more reliable signal for truth than official consensus any day
I'm not surprised to see that. IMHO it's nonsense rhetoric - means nothing, sounds good. Right from 4chan / reddit / etc.
> I think they captured something essential.
Agreed. They are special places, but not for any sort of factual truth.
> they were the vox populi
They are only narrow subsets of the public.
It's actually an interesting exchange as from my perspective, the people who are worried about disinformation are what I would call totalitaritized, where the idea of many-truths and subjectivity is a proxy for there being no truth at all. not so much champagne socialists as more banal, pumpkin spice nihilists.
the difference between a natural and recieved ontology is like a received pronunciation, people use it because they were told to use it for in-group signaling, and not as the effect of competence, principle, or experience. the people who are affectedly concerned about disinformation aren't reasoning from base reality or experience, they are iterating a logic of ideas used for in-group signaling. one of those ideas equates criticism with competence.
a received ontology is an affect, whereas a natural ontology is an effect. a mind that can't tell the difference between effect and affect is not equipped to apprehend the consequences of experience or competence, or of an ontology derived from it. it operates on representations and believes others do because that's the depth of its own experience, its consciousness exists on a substrate of languge and material symbols navigated by criticism. in a word, godless.
the beauty of sites like reddit, 4chan, and related ones is that for all their astroturfing, they accumulate honesty that people managing a hegemonic narrative persona can't allow to exist. disinformation and conspiracy theories exist, but I would argue the perspective that problematizes them is just an in-group affectation.
> the people who are worried about disinformation are what I would call totalitaritized, where the idea of many-truths and subjectivity is a proxy for there being no truth at all. not so much champagne socialists as more banal, pumpkin spice nihilists.
Who will keep reading after you say something ignorant, offensive, and fabricated like this? Again, you seem to have learned the lesson of propaganda: Shut down discourse.
they were the vox populi. a lot of it was garbage, but having a mental filter for it is what set a bar. humor is a more reliable signal for truth than official consensus any day. I think they captured something essential.
while you are probably sincere, when I hear terms like misinformation and disinformation these days I think, "tell me you have a received ontology without telling me you have a received ontology." that's how divided the discourse is. I'd save them because those sites were what people said when they felt they could express themselves honestly, and all gems are covered in muck, it just takes some digging and refinement.