> Having sources of trust is the basis of managing complexity.
This is a false equivalence that I’ve already addressed.
> When you turned the tap water on and bought a piece of meat at the butcher you didn't yourself verify whether its healthy right?
To a degree, yeah, you do check. Especially when you get it from somewhere with prior problems. And if you see something off you check further and adjust accordingly.
Why resort to anology? Should we blindly trust YouTube to judge whats true or not? I stated that labeling videos is fine but what’s not fine is blindly trusting it.
Additionally, comparing to meat dispenses with all the controversy because food safety is a comparatively objective standard.
Compare, “is this steak safe to eat or not?” To “is this speech safe to hear or not?”
This is a false equivalence that I’ve already addressed.
> When you turned the tap water on and bought a piece of meat at the butcher you didn't yourself verify whether its healthy right?
To a degree, yeah, you do check. Especially when you get it from somewhere with prior problems. And if you see something off you check further and adjust accordingly.
Why resort to anology? Should we blindly trust YouTube to judge whats true or not? I stated that labeling videos is fine but what’s not fine is blindly trusting it.
Additionally, comparing to meat dispenses with all the controversy because food safety is a comparatively objective standard.
Compare, “is this steak safe to eat or not?” To “is this speech safe to hear or not?”