Focus on making the mainstream media trustworthy by them demonstrating that they can be trusted, and make it really easy to access the truth and facts, add context to it. Just talk to people, really. Word of mouth is powerful. People want to learn new things where they are.
It's not rocket science, unless you are trying to pass propaganda off as the truth.
@thatguyoverthere@Moon I would argue that a lot of it is, yes. Consider that you want to get the support of your people to take part. You will emphasis the things that you think will get that support while downplaying other aspects. This is probably why there would have been less of an emphasis when a factory making munitions blew up and killed a lot of workers... and more of a focus on the victories at war or how patriotic it is to support the war effort rather than focusing on how unsafe it is for the workers when they do support it.
@thatguyoverthere@Moon For context, that literally happened but we don't focus much on the conditions of the workers working in the factories during the world war. You can learn more about one case here: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=DzQyfZR3hew
@sim@Moon good example. I had the golf of Tonkin incident and similar stories in my head when I mentioned lying to justify action. This is more subtle, at least before the explosion.
@aven@JAJAX I think you forgot to mention @Moon and @thatguyoverthere in regards to the Gulf of Tonkin incident. You have brought another good example to consider too.
@JAJAX I am making the assumption that the truth and facts will cut through the lies out there. Or at least that it becomes obvious when someone is lying over time, like the mainstream media. All you have to do is know the facts or experience of something personally and see how much the media gets wrong, see what spin they are telling.
I don't think everyone has to agree for this to work, and it is great that we can debate things and use the scientific method. That we can be aware when someone is giving an opinion. Or when someone is genuinely unwell. There just has to be a general consensus based on the truth and facts which can be proven.
@sim@JAJAX >Gulf of Tonkin incident That was the "attack" on US ships which was used to get the USA into the war in Vietnam. Later they said it might be "radar ghosts", and since then it's been declassified that it was all a lie all along, invented by the NSA, that there was no attack. The Vietnam War, for the USA, was based on this lie.
Misinformation is really just false beliefs and wrong opinions and lies. The purpose of calling it "misinformation" is to bundle all those things together into a kind of contraband to police, and create consent for the government to do so.
Look at COVID "misinformation": a lot of it turned out to be true. During the pandemic, speaking these truths was bannable on most social media, as influenced in the backdoor by government agencies (Twitter Files proves this). Their quest to "fight misinformation" led to suppressing truth and enforcing falsehood: their mandated beliefs were in the end, misinformation.
> There just has to be a general consensus based on the truth and facts which can be proven. My view is that consensus is neither possible nor desirable:
There are many topics for which truth is unclear, and creating consensus about them may lead to false consensus. Scientific consensuses can be wrong. Science is a process/method for discovering truth, not a set of truths.
There are many people who tragically, even when confronted with overwhelming evidence, will not be swayed. They cannot be forced to agree. Creating and enforcing a consensus is tyrannical, and in the past led to Lysenkoism.
Finally, even if somehow a true consensus formed, it would only serve to lessen people's ability to discern truth for themselves, as they would simply trust the consensus. Faced with new topics or issues, the consensus could become wrong about them, and would still be trusted.