this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2026
20 points (85.7% liked)

Ask Lemmy

39960 readers
1278 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This is hypothetical - the glasses don't fact-check what people say, they somehow detect willful deception, like people expect polygraphs to do, but with high accuracy. Would people welcome these, fear them, object on privacy grounds? I think it would be very contentious. Would people feel different if they only fed the information to the wearer but didn't record or send it anywhere? What exactly would the issues be?

top 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HeHoXa@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 days ago

Not to poo on the premise, but nobody would believe it reliable

[–] Flaqueman@sh.itjust.works 18 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Politicians would very quickly ban the thing "for our own security"

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

Can definitely see that happening.

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

But we already know politicians are lying and they still win elections,

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago

Politics would make them illegal so fast, your head would spin.

[–] Iconoclast@feddit.uk 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

I read a book around 10 years ago that convinced me that lying is almost never justifiable even when it comes to white lies and I've pretty much not ever lied since. And I'm not talking about radical honesty - not lying means not saying things that you know to be untrue, not that I always tell everything that's on my mind.

Few observations that have came from this experiment:

  • Most people lie constantly in situations that they wouldn't need to and they don't even realize it.
  • The cartoon examples people think of about situations where you're forced to tell an uncomfortable truth almost never happen.
  • People can't wait to brag about how good of an liar they are when the lie has been directed at a 3rd person - not realizing that gets them immediately labled as untrustworhy in my eyes.
  • Not lying to others also makes it more difficult to lie to yourself and forces you to face your bullshit
  • Most people absolutely hate for anyone to even suggest taking lying away from their toolkit (see this thread)
[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I read a book

share?

I strive for honestly in almost all things. I have a few relationships where honesty doesn't really work unless I want them to become very stressed out - innocuous inquiries like 'how are things?' <surveys the hellscape of our national politics/ society / ai etc.> they're dealing with dementia already, I can't be honest in these kinds of interactions.

[–] Iconoclast@feddit.uk 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I agree with these points, but you should talk to the other person here who said without lies civilization would collapse in a couple minutes. Quite the spectrum of beliefs.

[–] Iconoclast@feddit.uk 1 points 3 days ago

I don't necessarily disagree with them. There are people who have built their entire work and social life on lies. Pulling that rug out from under them at this point would cause it all to spectacularly collapse.

However, if everyone's lies were suddenly exposed, hardly anyone would have any ground to stand on from which to criticize others - people would discover that everyone is full of shit.

[–] evilcultist@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Can’t speak for anyone else, but every other word out of my mouth in the presence of these glasses would be an intentional lie.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I would start being overly honest and forthcoming about things I don't currently bring up because doing so isn't polite. Wouldn't want to lie by omission!

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Anarchy in the streets immediately. Imagine how many romantic, professional and social relationships would be tested right away.

[–] TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

That's what I was thinking with the social aspect.

[–] farmgineer@nord.pub 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

A lot of broken relationships followed by relief years later, assuming near-universal adoption; if everyone were just honest, it would stop a lot of issues. Abusers, gaslighters, sociopaths, etc. would presumably hate the whole experience.

[–] fraksken@infosec.pub 1 points 2 days ago

Half the politicians without a job ... Prepare for a record unemployment 😁

[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

object on privacy grounds

That would be the reasonable thing to do.

[–] Iconoclast@feddit.uk 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Even then lying is usually unecessary. Refusing to give out information isn't lying. The only situation in which I could make the case for lying is if refusing to answer reveals the truth.

[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Most people find lying absolutely neccessary in daily life.

Some do not like to admit that, for example in Usa is it culturally very overestimated.

[–] Iconoclast@feddit.uk 1 points 3 days ago

Sure. Telling the truth in a world full of liars is definitely not convenient. It comes with a personal cost, but that's the nature of living a principled life. Personally, I'd rather be disliked for who I am than liked for who I'm not.

[–] Deestan@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

I am trying to tag along with the thought experiment, but I can only imagine it being yet another tech bro scam. Elon Musk will sell Grok lie detector glasses that just fucking guesses, but the press will just keep copy-pasting deceitful press releases until half the people I meet believe the glasses do detect lies.

Many will then start using them in private resulting in both extreme frustration when they hallucinate lies, and unprecedented fashtech surveillance.

[–] Zonetrooper@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

People would very, very quickly start to rationalize why the detection couldn't possibly be right. Look at how many scientifically or historically proven things people already are willing to disregard because it conflicts with their worldview or beliefs!

So they detect "willful" deception? People would just fall back on the "...well, I didn't know" / "didn't think XYZ counted" / "didn't consider ABC" as their excuses. Or if it can be shown that 0.00-near-infinite-zeros-01% of the population has some quirk which makes them detect wrongly, suddenly there'd be most of the population claiming that.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

To sum that up, are you saying people would find reasons to disbelieve that their heroes and icons are lying? I was thinking more along the lines of personal contact - everyday conversations, business deals, etc.

[–] Zonetrooper@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Yep. Their heroes, icons, leaders, family... and themselves.

Hell, they'd disbelieve if the glasses detected someone was telling the truth, but they didn't want to believe that!

[–] BagOfHeavyStones@piefed.social 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Might be a problem with narcissists who believe their own lies?

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

True, if it's designed to detect deceit it won't detect self-delusion.

[–] Hackworth@piefed.ca 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If I look in a mirror, will they detect when I'm lying to myself? Take my money.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Only if you're doing it on purpose.

[–] Libb@piefed.social 1 points 3 days ago
  • Without lies any civilization would collapse in a matter of minutes: faced with what all of us really think, most people would kill one another (or commit suicide) even faster than that, as all the wishful-thinking and illusions so many of us rely upon would instantly vanish.
  • People would try to get rid of that tech (and in the process some would decide to do some nasty things to their creators/advocates) trying to save themselves from that very short lived hell this tech created. And they would fail.
[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] ThatGuy46475@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

It’s devastating to my case!

[–] chunes@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

It would destroy civilization instantly, since it relies on lies all the way down.

[–] yesman@lemmy.world -4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

they somehow detect willful deception, like people expect polygraphs to do, but with high accuracy

This technology is a fantasy. It relies on the false assumption that their are detectable, reliable, and measurable physiological differences between bodies that are lying and bodies that are telling the truth.

Polygraphs aren't unreliable because the technology isn't ready. They're unreliable because the idea that you can physically measure a concept (lying) is logical fallacy. (reification).

[–] cattywampas@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

Do you know what a thought experiment is

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Yeah you're not understanding what "hypothetical" means - it means suppose this happens, not asking if it can. Like if I asked how FTL space travel would change our culture, it's the culture part I'm interested in, not the physics being impossible.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 1 points 3 days ago

Technically, shouldn't the fact that brain activity ultimately has a physical basis (various chemical and electrical signals moving around and such) imply that, if a person lying knows they're lying, there should be some physical difference between that brain and the brain of an otherwise identical individual saying the same thing, but believing it to be true? Measuring that and interpreting the data might be an impractically difficult problem to solve, sure, but if there truly were no physical difference, that would have to imply that at some level, thinking is a supernatural process that at least partly occurs outside the physical universe, which is both something no evidence exists for, and would seem in contradiction to things we do observe, like how damage to the brain changes and impairs a person's thinking