Fact-checkers’ axing leaves truth on chopping block

Alexandra Senter draws a direct link between the invention of the printing press and an explosion in human knowledge (“Truth is we can’t handle the truth”, January 11), the Scientific Revolution and the so-called Enlightenment. Yet the personalisation and subjectification of truth is a result of this very shift towards the reliance on human observation and construction of knowledge. The centralised control of information that Setter associates with the Dark Ages is the very thing that Zuckerberg, Musk and their users are seeking to disrupt. Science and enlightenment have failed to deal with the very human desire for self-determination. Philip Cooney, Wentworth Falls

I am bemused by the reports that Mark Zuckerberg has got rid of fact-checkers who monitored Facebook posts. Could these “fact-checkers” be the same people who allow my feed to be infected by claims from flat-Earthers, climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers and Trump fanatics virtually every day? If so, they haven’t been doing a very good job. Currently, I’m being plagued by Trumpettes claiming that on Day 1 of the new administration, the price of petrol and other necessities will plummet to an affordable level. That’s not fact; that’s wishful thinking. Richard Mason, Newtown

One of the best articles ever on “truth”. Thank you. I hesitate to even add anything. However, it is a problem that many things these days actually require mathematics, and even computer programs, to turn the data derived from measurements into knowledge. This is certainly the case with things such as the spread of diseases, the mutation of viruses and, of course, the effects of global warming. Fact-checking, in other words, requires expertise, even if you have an open mind. Those of us who can do our own research, in our own areas of expertise, are often frustrated (and of course sometimes find we are wrong). If you are in doubt, at least try Wikipedia, much better than X. Noel Thompson, Riverview

Kellyanne Conway served as adviser to Trump for three years in his former presidency, yet is best known for two words that she used at a press conference. Questioned about White House press secretary Sean Spicer’s inaccurate claim concerning the size of the crowd at Trump’s 2017 inauguration, she said Spicer had used “alternative facts”. The article about Meta’s decision to dispense with professional fact-checkers in the interests of free speech makes for alarming reading. The decision leaves us all dangerously exposed – to misinformation, to intentional and inadvertent falsehoods, to bigotry and racism. No fact-checking system is flawless, but this abdication of social responsibility threatens to turn social media into even more of an echo chamber than it already is. Vic Alhadeff, Kirribilli

Some 20 centuries ago, Pontius Pilate well captured a common attitude to the nature of truth in his cynical response to Jesus’ statement at his trial that he had come to bear witness to the truth: “What is truth?” We humans may be more rationalising than rational animals, and so truth may often be whatever sits most comfortably with us at a given moment. Paul Casey, Callala Bay

Progressives’ uphill battle

Talk about rearranging the facts to suit your argument (“Left behind”, January 11). The central argument in this analysis – that centre-right parties are and will continue to dominate many jurisdictions because of some imagined swing to the right – cannot be deduced from recent electoral results. All governments in proper democracies periodically change regardless of colour. Those in Canada, the UK and New Zealand, having been in power for multiple terms, are especially vulnerable. If you did the same analysis a few years ago you’d have found that the US, Canada, New Zealand and every Australian government were centre-left, with the UK about to join them. I don’t recall at the time hearing that the centre-right was facing Armageddon. It’s true that centre-left parties have a harder row to hoe. They only exist to try to improve the lives of the populace and make society more equitable. And because this requires change, and change is always fraught, they invariably face strong headwinds. Revealingly, the reform measures introduced by centre-left governments are always opposed by the right but rarely abolished when the right is back in power. Tony Mitchell, Hillsdale

Of course, the problem with “progressive” political parties is their taking their gaze off the plight of society’s less well-off. Forcing economic battlers to give more and more of their dwindling pay packets to the much better-off shareholders in banks, as the main way to limit inflation, is plainly deranged as a re-election strategy. Couple that with giving huge tax breaks to those holding titles to three, four or more homes, while levying huge debts on young students, making their saving for a home deposit impossible. Just those two deliberate strategies are a recipe for voters to try anything but incumbent government. Present policies are punitive when, even for the more left wing, there are sensible alternatives. How about, for one, asking people to pay larger sums into their super accounts instead of servicing higher interest in mortgages, if the intent is to limit what they can spend? Or can we view higher education as an investment in the nation’s future, and reduce or waive fees for our youngsters? Why must governments endorse the madcap business strategies of tertiary institutions forced to depend on fee-paying students to survive? There are fairer, more equitable ways. Australia needs well-educated young people, comfortably able to buy homes for their growing families. The conservatives offer no sensible alternative. They’d have us all boiling in our own juices well before their mythical nuclear solutions had any impact. Peter O’Brien, Randwick

Could it be that the plight of leftist parties has something to do with the unrealistic expectations of the masses? There was a time when most people were happy to rent. Perhaps the answer is to make rental arrangements more equitable rather than try to enable everyone to own a house, an impossible undertaking. Andrew Macintosh, Cromer

The article claims that our prime minister has tried to avoid culture war debates “including by ruling out new census questions on intersex status”. I would challenge anyone to argue how singling out intersex Australians for exclusion from our census (after having previously done the same to gay and transgender Australians) is anything other than a perfect example of culture war politics. The article correctly identifies economic failures as a cause of the left’s decline, but abandoning election promises and caving to homophobia will do nothing to preserve trust or votes. Liska Fell, Cooks Hill

Matthew Knott’s broad-ranging article quotes the go-to man, Kos Samaras, as suggesting that “the left needs to refashion as a force for populist disruption rather than as a defender of the status quo”. Why not both disrupt and tackle some of the climate pressures on Australia by cutting immigration radically? This may seem to be a right-wing populist project. But the neocon rationale to grow our population for a Big Australia simply puts pressure on water resources, the environment and housing supply without actually growing our economy per capita one iota. And it’s surely time for our universities – which love immigration – to stop thinking of themselves as an industry and get on with the job of teaching young Australians to think. Jeremy Eccles, Clifton Gardens

Hang on. “Voters around the world are fed up with … the rise of inequality and are looking for radical solutions”, so they’re voting for conservatives? Would someone please explain? Kerrie Wehbe, Blacktown

Big Oil’s crime against humanity

Nick O’Malley’s disturbing article (“Fossil fuels are back – and cooking”, January 11) confirms grave suspicions. Record profits of fossil fuel producers have provided them with incentives to abandon the development of green alternatives and focus on increased oil and gas production. Donald Trump’s election slogan of “Drill Baby Drill” has reinforced this. The Aramco CEO’s imperative to “abandon the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas” is effectively a crime against humanity. In this context, the prospect of climate change-enhanced flood, fire, drought and heatwave victims suing the fossil fuel producers is minimal, as the latter will simply direct liability to consumers. They have the resources to successfully advocate this in court. In this scenario of increased oil and gas production, the Paris Agreement target becomes merely an item of historical interest. Given the persistence of greenhouse gases, unless the aim of global net zero by around 2050 is achieved, then global warming will head well past two or even three degrees. Roger Epps, Armidale

Although he ended the piece positively, Nick O’Malley’s insights on big fossil fuels were chilling. In the context of inferno fires, the fossil fuel industry needs to be reined in by governments. Like big tobacco before it, coal, oil and gas should be demonised for what they are: polluting killers. Amy Hiller, Kew (Vic)

Prepare for the worst

While “hydroclimate whiplash” may explain the very wet then very dry weather pattern affecting LA (‴⁣⁣Hydroclimate whiplash’ the fuel feeding fires”, January 11), which we have also experienced in this country recently, what is certain is that the swimming pool full of water visible in the photo demonstrates the lack of thought and preparedness in LA. Containing about 32,000 litres of water, that pool could have supplied a 100-litre-per-minute fire hose for 5.3 hours. Similarly, none of the images in the media of big houses with large windows burning showed any sign of shutters that could have prevented the windows breaking and letting embers inside. There are lessons to be learnt here for Australian cities backing onto bushland but even, as in the Canberra fires, less obviously fraught regional centres. We don’t need another “black” day on the calendar. Mark Walker, West Kempsey

The Earth will always exist, but whether it’s inhabitable by the human race or some other form of life is now an existential question we need to deal with. Now. Don’t let Trump, Elon Musk and the other climate deniers lead us to it like lemmings. Explain and bluster your way out of the Los Angeles disasters short of blaming female firefighters and diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, Elon and Donald. Talk about putting the children in charge of the country. Ian Ferrier, Long Jetty

No time to delay

With insurers facing more than $32 billion in claims from the LA fires (“Burnt insurers were getting out before the LA fires”, January 11), which does not include uninsured and economic losses, the largely ignored warnings from climate scientists to governments that “the cost of not addressing climate change will far exceed the cost of climate-mitigating action” have never rung truer. The Coalition has stalled and opposed the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy for over a decade, despite witnessing “intensifying flooding and ferocious fire seasons fuelled by a changing climate”. As they attempt to blame the Albanese government for insurance prices that have raised the cost of living, they should reflect on their own role in failing to listen and act. Young voters should also remember being told by Coalition MPs that they should be at school rather than attending climate demonstrations. If Coalition MPs still deny climate change, as some clearly do, they need only talk to insurance actuaries. Alan Marel, North Curl Curl

We have friends who live in an area prone to bushfires, and they are finding it harder and harder to find companies willing to insure their property. It’s only a matter of time before they run out of options. Then what? As the planet heats up, this problem will become increasingly widespread and will eventually reach our urban centres – as it has in California. By that time, of course, it will be too late to fix the problem. We’ll be forced to adapt to a world far less benign than the one we live in now. Is this the future we want for our children? Ken Enderby, Concord

Alternative route

Could our transport planners look outside the box, widen their tunnel vision and revisit a suggestion of a few decades ago – a very fast ferry from Sydney (Circular Quay) to the Central Coast (Brisbane Water somewhere near an existing station) (“Ferry arrival flags new generation of electric efficiency”, January 11)? No railway lines to install or maintain, no signals to fail, no land to be resumed. I’m sure engineers in Spain or China or even Australia could come up with such a vessel in less time than it would take to get a fast rail line operating. Helen Howes, Collaroy

Instead of investing billions of dollars in to fast rail for the east coast, maybe the government should look at putting that money into teleportation. I’ve seen it work on an American TV show from the ’60s. Apparently, you have to keep flies out of the machine though; some problems have been known to occur. Pete Jones, Rathmines

Quay to the city

I agree with your correspondents (Letters, January 11) regarding Circular Quay railway station. I feel joy as I look out of the train windows or stand at the platform and view our magnificent harbour. I notice many visitors to our city feel the same. I suggest making a feature of the view from the railway station and agree with beautifying the surrounding area. I also sympathise with other readers about the difficulty of visiting the NSW Art Gallery and other attractions due to poor transport options. Linda Page, Baulkham Hills

• To submit a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, email [email protected]. Click here for tips on how to submit letters.
• The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform. Sign up here.