They warned you: Someone allegedly used a politician's cloned voice to interfere with an election
www.techspot.com
The New Hampshire Attorney General's Office is investigating a robocall that went out to voters in the state telling them not to vote in the upcoming Democratic...

They warned you: Someone allegedly used a politician’s cloned voice to interfere with an election | It will most assuredly not be the last time this happens::undefined

  • Pxtl@lemmy.caEnglish
    385·
    10 months ago

    sounds dystopian.

    So does the total death of objective fact.

    An end to internet anonymity isn’t great, but given the alternative I’ll take it.

      • piratehat@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        11·
        10 months ago

        Truth is never subjective. Truth is Truth. People have different opinions on where the truth lies but there’s is an objective reality to anything.

          • OrganicMustard@lemmy.worldEnglish
            9·
            10 months ago

            Here the more pragmatic use of truth is being used, which most of the people would agree in its objectiveness. Either the real person did the call or not.

            Even in the philosophical concept of truth different schools of thoughts have different views on its objectiveness. Here is a better resource I think.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            10 months ago

            And I see you didn’t understand your philosophy 101 course.

            All the ideas we have about this stuff comes from a pre-science era and nothing we discovered backs up what they argued.

            That is why Plato can make up another dimension and a psychic connection, that is why Hume could pretend to not know what cause and effect was, that is why Desecrates could think that if he has an idea it has to be true…

            Something to consider for a moment. If you are really determined to maintain the stance that truth is subject that would mean this stance is subjective. Hence there must be exceptions, but your stance allows none. Any statement of the effect that statements are never fully true is going to produce contradictions.

            • Patch@feddit.ukEnglish
              1·
              10 months ago

              Desecrates could think that if he has an idea it has to be true

              That’s not what Descartes said, by the way.

              “I think therefore I am” was all about “I know I must exist, because I’m here to think about it”. It wasn’t about “if I think something it must be true”.

              In Discourse he sets about trying to establish what things you can know for sure, vs which things are subjective (and could just be a trick of the mind or an illusion). He establishes the first principle that the one thing he knows is definitely true is that he is an entity that is capable of thought (because otherwise, who else is doing all this thinking?) and therefore at the very least he must exist, even if nothing else does.

              If you’re of the position that truth isn’t subjective, “Cartesian doubt” should be right up your alley. Trust nothing until you can prove it! Not a bad position for a philosopher to take.

      • daltotron@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        10 months ago

        Based, destroy the infantile mind of the materialist objectivist determinist this space is reserved for more future jargon tech-bro.

        Truth is subjective precisely because I can say that the sky is red, and I will be correct. If you ever needed any help understanding that then you should’ve been paying attention to the difference in reporting between ukraine and gaza right now. It’s not just “spin” either, I can plague you with misconceptions, turn you into a conspiracy theorist, warp what you think is really important in life. I can bullshit you, I can call a horse a chair, and I will be correct. Do you understand why there’s no truth now?

        Also fucking weird that the counterargument to “government issued crypto ID” is “well, we don’t want the total death of objective fact, do we?”. those two things definitely seem connected, those seem related. Definitely seems as though we couldn’t just use another adversarial bot to run checks on whether or not any given thing is manufactured, entering into in a perpetual propaganda arms race that corporations and those with money and power are always going to win, in an unregulated and dystopian modern internet. All of which is what’s already fucking happening. Seems like the solution to that would just be to double down on the police state tracking, which I would expect to be something that has concrete repercussions on the powerful, and never the common man, of course.

        Why do we live in hell?