I think @noamchomskyT is wrong here (#UnderstandingPower, p232) on the differences between science and the humanities, but I get his point. Work in both fields should be about applying what's known to produce more knowledge through testing hypothesis.
In so much (cyberpunk?) media from the 70s, 80s, and 90s, the hero is a journalist.
Journalism, was seen as the ultimate tool against despots.
(Think Max Headroom: 20 Minutes into the Future, or Transmetropolitan, Makers (and many of the rest of Doctorow's books) or even Futureworld.)
And VCs + Facebook have effectively crippled modern journalism. Destroyed most local journalism. Rendered the pursuit of truth an optional side project for the left, and incompatible with the right.
Does it make sense for there to be a social.gov? Or social.STATE.gov etc? Governments already serve as arbiters of our identity. I'm not thinking of it as a place to toot but more as a separate repository for public/private data we want to be able to easily update but also have government verify. Applications could then be authorized to access it, and we could be notified when they do. Personal repositories we control but government could help us manage, instead of corporations. #controversial
.@radioopensource mentions this ad, opposing the Iraq War in 2002. It was signed by 33 academics. @EricRWeinstein talks about an alternative sense-making apparatus to mainstream media. Documents like these seem a good place to start our search for pundits.
Prince - Let's Go Crazy https://t.co/TWi0G2Gxrh
Modern politics is just marketing to a shrinking demographic. Instead address what's preventing people from understanding the issues, being engaged and able to express their opinions most effectively. Then figure out your policy preferences as a candidate and explain why. No BS. https://t.co/6sLvc6wQ7k
The value of postmodernism is the recognition that we can never have perfect knowledge, but it's failure is in believing that individuals can never know anything well enough. Truth vs truth.