If some major news org said they contacted Tom Cruise and asked him if the video was real and he said it wasn't him, then as an average person I'd probably believe them because I have at least some degree of trust that they'll either tell the truth or get called out on the lie and ultimately what do I care either way.
It's extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence and "Paris Hilton and Tom Cruise do rich people things on camera" doesn't meet that threshold. If someone posted a video of the president eating a live baby I'd probably be more skeptical of my sources.
Get "called out" how, exactly?
With the distribution channels centralized, how do you call out a lie by a "major news org", if the gvt (Google, Youtube, FB, Twitter…) decide to play along and suppress your message?
The EU Commissar of Truth, Vera Jourova, announced that "the era of the Wild West for free speech is over". She also cited "gentlemen's agreement" with the "big boy" platforms where legislation is lacking for now. Chilling.
To the degree that the censorship machine fails, it fails for technical reasons, not for a lack of appetite.
A resigned shrug and "ultimately what do I care" is increasingly common. It might be a self-correcting problem, on the evolutionary scale.
> If someone posted a video of the president eating a live baby I'd probably be more skeptical of my sources.
Isn't that because you've lived a life grounded (mostly) in physical reality? With free access to (mostly) uncensored information?
We might be surprised what's considered "extraordinary" with respect to a "sceptical threshold" in the future, especially once the pre-internet generation dies out. And digital information with digital influencers (AI or not!) beholden to a few centralized platforms shaping the consensus reality.
