I think I’ve said it every time the conflict vs mistake theory topic comes up: it’s a vastly oversimple model, pretty close to useless in any real-world situation. I fully agree with your view of mixed purposes and mixed receiver capabilities for public messaging.
Even bounded distrust isn’t sufficient—first, the boundary between straightforward truth-seeking and deception is fractal—there’s a LOT of grey and no way to have a classifier that can tell you what’s happening. Second, social technology (understanding of impact of communication choices) has grown in the last few decades, so that the deception is evolved to be far more effective, even while being far less clearly biased in any direction. It’s MASSIVELY improved at “engagement”, and only a bit improved at directional political movement.
I think I’ve said it every time the conflict vs mistake theory topic comes up: it’s a vastly oversimple model, pretty close to useless in any real-world situation. I fully agree with your view of mixed purposes and mixed receiver capabilities for public messaging.
Even bounded distrust isn’t sufficient—first, the boundary between straightforward truth-seeking and deception is fractal—there’s a LOT of grey and no way to have a classifier that can tell you what’s happening. Second, social technology (understanding of impact of communication choices) has grown in the last few decades, so that the deception is evolved to be far more effective, even while being far less clearly biased in any direction. It’s MASSIVELY improved at “engagement”, and only a bit improved at directional political movement.