When this trust is destroyed, by terrorists or invading armies, or by thieves and fraudsters. life cannot continue as before. Society fragments into little groups who know and trust each other. — unenlightened

This fragmentation is the goal for anarchism, being composed of people who have no trust in government.

So trust is a major concern for government. The concern for "law and order" is the concern to maintain trust. The concern for "health and safety" is the concern to maintain trust. The concern for keeping a balanced economy is the concern to maintain trust in the medium of exchange. — unenlightened

Top concern for the government would be to maintain trust in the government, because its subsistence depends on that.

Do you trust Google? Should you? is there any way of checking Google? Is there any way of holding Google to account? — unenlightened

No. All you need to do is look at the order of priority by which they present your search results to you, to know that Google is not trustworthy. And, I really don't think people in general would be more inclined to trust Google over trusting the government, and there seems to be a significant number of anarchists out there in the world.

I agree about the concept of trust.

But do you trust Google? — unenlightened

Not really, but I trust corporate image and Google is actually in the business of trust. Their lifeblood is that we trust the safety google provides and that the services provided are trustworthy. When reports came in about how Google handled paid search results it was a major blow to their brand. Same goes for Facebook, who need to keep the trust of their users.

As long as the business requires the trust of its users, then it's a level of trust that can be used by the users themselves. I believe that a Google-branded trust-marking system is possible, because Google wants to be the most trustworthy search engine. And if they start to mark pages as trustworthy because those pages pay Google for it, that would be a blow to their brand of trust that is hard to recover from.

We can trust the fear of losing trust. As long as there's a cold war balance in trust between consumers and producers in a capitalist society, it will regulate itself. Customers want to trust a company and the company needs the customer's trust. Failure to comply results in failure of the business.

So can we trust google? No, but we can trust that they want to keep their business. It's important not to become naive and comfy in their care, always question them, always question everyone. By constantly challenging them and reviewing them we challenge their handle of our trust and they will do anything to keep that trust. The risk of mishandling trust is such a bad business strategy that it gives us enough trust for the life we live. But always question them, otherwise they will find loopholes.

As for the marking system, the system itself should be independent as a standard. Google should implement it with search results, but the standardized system is not Google's. Review of how the system is handled by Google is therefore done by that independent committee.

This fragmentation is the goal for anarchism, being composed of people who have no trust in government. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nonsense. I have already outlined the obvious, that trust is destroyed by untruth and deliberate betrayal such as terrorism. Do not buy into the myth of the bomb-carrying anarchist. It is the fascist, the fanatic and the totalitarian who seek to destroy trust. Anarchy depends upon it absolutely.

Customers want to trust a company and the company needs the customer's trust. Failure to comply results in failure of the business. — Christoffer

This is not really true. A company may work hard to gain the trust of customers, but once they receive it they have the customers by the balls. And since the company's priority is always its financial well-being there is no good reason why the company would not abuse that trust.

Anarchy depends upon it absolutely. — unenlightened

Anarchy depends on trust of the government?

I believe that a Google-branded trust-marking system is possible, because Google wants to be the most trustworthy search engine. And if they start to mark pages as trustworthy because they pay Google for it, that would be a blow to their brand of trust that is hard to recover from. — Christoffer

Yes, just like the milk seller depends on trust. Government, business, everyone in a society depends on trust for every interaction. And if we do not trust google, do we trust the independent body supervising them?

I propose that the sickness of the age is that blows to trust have proliferated and they are indeed hard to recover from. But we cannot function without trust, and we cannot function without a search engine. I don't think there is another answer. Trust comes from honour, and so without honour we die. Thus the unreality of morality is seen to be somewhat exaggerated.

This is not really true. A company may work hard to gain the trust of customers, but once they receive it they have the customers by the balls. And since the company's priority is always its financial well-being there is no good reason why the company would not abuse that trust. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, agreed, that's why I said:

It's important not to become naive and comfy in their care, always question them, always question everyone. By constantly challenging them and reviewing them we challenge their handle of our trust and they will do anything to keep that trust. The risk of mishandling trust is such a bad business strategy that it gives us enough trust for the life we live. But always question them, otherwise they will find loopholes. — Christoffer

In essence, the larger the corporation, the heavier the fall. If financial well-being is their concern, a major blow to trust would be a major blow to financial well-being. The more a company relies on trust in their business, the worse the consequences of trust abuse.

That's why we always have to review these companies, that's why it's so important with things like whistleblowers, protection of them, and company practice transparency.

The thing I wrote about markings though, has to do standardized markings of websites that provide information. It would be in Google's interest to do this since people want a trustworthy search engine. There isn't much gain to abuse such a marking system for their searches and they would be praised for battling the post-truth era problems of information.

Anarchy depends upon it absolutely.
— unenlightened

Anarchy depends on trust of the government? — Metaphysician Undercover

No.

Yes, just like the milk seller depends on trust. Government, business, everyone in a society depends on trust for every interaction. And if we do not trust google, do we trust the independent body supervising them?

I propose that the sickness of the age is that blows to trust have proliferated and they are indeed hard to recover from. But we cannot function without trust, and we cannot function without a search engine. I don't think there is another answer. Trust comes from honour, and so without honour we die. Thus the unreality of morality is seen to be somewhat exaggerated. — unenlightened

Yes, this is the fundamental problem of the post-truth era and it's a tricky one. I think that trust comes from repetition. Repetition of competence, repetition of providing evidence and facts.

If a political leader provides facts and evidence, act upon educated ideas etc. they will after repetition of such conduct be treated as trustworthy political leaders.

An independent body supervising this marking system will have to be founded by trustworthy people that exist within its committee. Experts in their field that has earned trust through repetition within their job. Then the independent body itself needs to repeat until being labeled trustworthy.

The marking system itself is based on repetition, repeated acts of trustworthy nature will keep the marking for their websites. Misconduct will mark them as not trustworthy. It might even need regulations and laws around it, so that Google is not handling it, but maybe demanded to have it and if they abuse it, it's considered a crime against information.

The big question is, in a time when no one can be trustworthy, can we create a system that can guide people to trustworthy sources of information? If we can have systems of review within science in order to exclude pseudoscience, why not for marking information so that people know where to find evidence and facts and where to be careful. I think it's possible and I think the alternative is worse chaos.

In essence, the larger the corporation, the heavier the fall. If financial well-being is their concern, a major blow to trust would be a major blow to financial well-being. The more a company relies on trust in their business, the worse the consequences of trust abuse. — Christoffer

The problem though is that we can do things which are untrustworthy without losing the trust of the others. That is called deception, and so long as the deception goes unexposed the trust remains, and the person being deceived is taken advantage of. This is an issue of morality.

We don't really know exactly which situations will lead to people secretly doing untrustworthy things, and we can't predict the future anyway, so we can't predict what type of untrustworthy things people might start doing, and therefore we cannot be on guard for those things, to expose them if they occur. If they do occur, people will have been taken advantage of, (and not just a small number, due to the type of business Google is) and it will be too late to prevent these people from being taken advantage of. Haven't we already learned that lesson with Facebook?

That's why we always have to review these companies, that's why it's so important with things like whistleblowers, protection of them, and company practice transparency. — Christoffer

The whistleblowing is after the fact. What good is closing the barn door when the horse is long gone? Sure you might punish some perpetrators, but that doesn't prevent the harm from being done.

There isn't much gain to abuse such a marking system for their searches and they would be praised for battling the post-truth era problems of information. — Christoffer

You can say this, but generally speaking, if abuse is possible people will find a way to make a gain from it. That's how it earns its name "abuse", people using it for bad purposes. And they wouldn't do it if there was no gain to be made.

But do you trust Google? — unenlightened

Google is just a search engine that provides links to trustworthy, or untrustworthy information. It's not so much should you trust Google, but should you trust the sites that Google provides as a result of your search? Do you trust your own site-searching skills, and use of keywords, to find the right information you are looking for?

Do you trust Google? Should you? is there any way of checking Google? Is there any way of holding Google to account? — unenlightened

The same can be said of all the philosophers that are constantly quoted on these forums. The way Witt is quoted on this forum, it would seem that he would be the most trustworthy of all philosophers. :chin:

So what level of trust is enough for a functioning society? Do you trust scientists? Do you trust hospitals? Do you trust your mechanic not to tamper with the breaks? The building blocks around trust are many more than "if there's a chance of abuse, there will be abuse". That's a Murphy's law type reasoning that isn't very nuanced. It is true that abuse happens, so how do we minimize it? We can't get rid of the risk of abuse without losing freedom, so we can only minimize it. Repercussions to companies conducting such abuse, risk of closure, legal actions etc. Alongside that the risk of the business losing the trust of the customers which is a major part of having a business running. Risking that trust is not a good business strategy and doing so requires extreme measures that could be even riskier.

So what level of trust can you work with? And if you can't give trust in any direction how would you solve that?

Google is just a search engine that provides links to trustworthy, or untrustworthy information. It's not so much should you trust Google, but should you trust the sites that Google provides as a result of your search? Do you trust your own site-searching skills, and use of keywords, to find the right information you are looking for? — Harry Hindu

Exactly and it's in their interest to look trustworthy. They do not gain anything from falsely marking other websites as trustworthy or not, quite the opposite, people would want to use Google more in order to be certain in their web searches if there was a clear marking system for trustworthy sites in the searches.

A couple of thoughts:

First, the distrust of government is obviously not new. The question for liberal democracies (of which I include the US) is how to deal with that. In the US system (ideally), the President cannot act without the approval of the Senate, without the approval of the House, without the approval of the Court, and they are all ultimately checked by the people, and the people are even checked by the rights set forth in the Constitution. These checks and balances were forged as the result of distrust of the government.

Second, I agree that distrust is the result of prior dishonesty, but it's often far less sinister than that. The first question the judge will ask prospective jurors when they walk in the courtroom is whether they are related by blood or marriage to the litigants, whether they have a financial interest in the outcome of the case, or whether they have formed any opinions prior to hearing any evidence. The purpose for these questions is to exclude on the basis of bias. I cannot hear a case involving my mother not because I am a scoundrel or liar when it comes to my mother, but it's because I am hopelessly biased as to all things that might relate to her. By the same token, if I will be called upon to pay the verdict in a civil case, I cannot sit as a juror. In a criminal case, I cannot sit if I was a prior victim of the accused, and I suppose we could imagine a number of other such cases. None these exclusions are based upon my propensity to lie or be dishonest. In fact, a judge is required to recuse herself if there's even the appearance of impropriety, despite the fact she may possess the wisdom of Solomon and the trust of all the community.

When one looks to the various news outlets, we see distrust from one side or the other. The left watches CNN and the right FoxNews. The complaint du jour by the right is that CNN is not covering the allegations of Biden's prior sexual misconduct. The argument isn't that CNN is filled with liars and cheaters, but that it's biased. It's that it does not stand as a neutral, but as an advocate. It's that everything is spun and then advocated or condemned. The general complaint of our time is that of polarization, where everyone is now an advocate and everyone is selling a point of view.

Thirty years ago, we trusted our news outlets not to be biased, but today, not so much. I'd submit that we haven't degenerated from a trusting bunch to a skeptical bunch, but that we've simply shaken away some amount of naivete and that we're now more sophisticated. Your question about whether we should trust Google is a good one because it recognizes that Google has in fact become the current check and balance for our news, where we can determine for ourselves if we've got our facts straight. And maybe it is time to become skeptical of it, not because we're further degenerating, but because we're becoming even more sophisticated. But the answer is that I do expect (and there likely already is one) a new search engine that will emerge that the right will say is less biased or one the left will say is less biased. Regardless, that's a good thing, as I see no reason to trust the folks at Google not to also be selling something or some point of view.

I'd submit that we haven't degenerated from a trusting bunch to a skeptical bunch, but that we've simply shaken away some amount of naivete and that we're now more sophisticated. — Hanover

Your point about bias is a good one, and the judicial tradition is well versed in maximising the potential for trust. Indeed when it comes to matters close to the heart or wallet, one should perhaps not trust oneself.

I suggest that the invention of advertising - an offshoot of psychology has caused some degeneration in trust over the last century, but sure it is nothing new in essence. Still it perhaps offers a third strand of failure of relationship, bias, manipulation, and dishonesty.

But here I want to hold the line that trust is always naive, by definition, and sophistication is always mistrustful. The justice system is sophisticated, because its business is to deal with the failure and collapse of relationships of trust. And the queen of justice systems is restorative justice, because it is in the business of restoring relationships of trust.

I put this in ethics, not politics, because I think trust is the ground of relationships and institutions of all kinds. A lot of the responses so far have been suggestions for remedies in this or that situation, or defences of their overall honesty.

When trust is lost, there are laws and punishments and hierarchies of watchdogs watching each other. But trust is not restored, except by honesty.

Trust is a universal force analogous to gravity. — unenlightened

Highly speculative but deliciously quotable.

Corporations are only as good as the society that invests in them. I don't trust Google any more than I trust the lot of you, which isn't very much. You'll ostracized people for no other reason than they disagree with you, and Google is the same.

But trust is not restored, except by honesty. — unenlightened

In the business world trust is redirected to trust in the rule of law. I was reading that Islam was merchant law throughout Central Asia and spread quietly by virtue of that, not by the sword.

So that affirms your point, but with a modification in the object of trust.

In a perfect world, there's no need for trust. Everything remains the same, and matter becomes absolutely solid.

I don't trust Google any more than I trust the lot of you, which isn't very much. — neonspectraltoast

I applaud your honesty, and trust your expression of distrust. But alas, you probably do not trust my expressions of approval. So where can we go from here?

It seems to me that we cannot communicate without trust, so I start to wonder why you participate in this process if you do not trust the participants?

Because I'm a man and a man has nothing else to do. I just go through the motions. If people want to be jerks, it's not really my problem.

I can easily picture being redflagged by Google just for not being status quo. It's the same old story everywhere I go.

At the end of my life I'll determine who was trustworthy. Until then I'll just wait for the other shoe to drop. Everywhere I've been I've just encountered lowly people.

People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can’t trust people.

It's literally going to take a miracle to get people to stop being dicks

In a perfect world...
— Shawn

I don't believe you know whereof you speak.

I just go through the motions. — neonspectraltoast

I don't believe this. I think you care.

People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can’t trust people. — Professor Death

You are wrong. And you know you are wrong because you take the trouble to say something. So your trust is being displayed even as you deny it. It is terrible and true that people voted for the Nazis, and we are so fortunate to understand that without having lived it. I trust that understanding in us.

It's literally going to take a miracle to get people to stop being dicks — neonspectraltoast

If you wait for everybody else to be perfect, you will indeed be waiting a good while.

I don't demand perfection. But I believe in good hearts. The more light, the deeper the shadows. But I'd rather confront them in the light than in the dark.

I don't trust completely in anything, because in doing so I lose my freedom.

This fragmentation is the goal for anarchism, being composed of people who have no trust in government.
— Metaphysician Undercover

Nonsense. I have already outlined the obvious, that trust is destroyed by untruth and deliberate betrayal such as terrorism. Do not buy into the myth of the bomb-carrying anarchist. It is the fascist, the fanatic and the totalitarian who seek to destroy trust. Anarchy depends upon it absolutely. — unenlightened

Then who we distrust is people with too much power over others. Do you trust others to make your life's choices?

Trust is a universal force analogous to gravity.
— unenlightened
Highly speculative but deliciously quotable. — Zophie

A deepity.

too much power — Harry Hindu

How much is too much? My milk provider has the power of life and death over me, because I drink the stuff without testing it. Think bus driver rather than supreme leader.

I don't trust completely in anything, because in doing so I lose my freedom. — Professor Death

If you don't trust your dentist, you gonna suffer some pain.

Perhaps the root of trust lies in the ability to trust yourself? Maybe before you can ever really trust another, you first must trust, at least to a certain extent, your own judgment, intuition, perspective, etc. Doing this, however, requires introspection and the will to be honest with yourself, and brave enough to recognize your own faults, biases, etc. Perhaps the extent to which we trust others is simply a projection of how much we trust ourselves?

I can trust them and suffer pain if they do a shoddy job