Molson Hart

(« They won’t trust you because YOUR friends vouch for you. They’ll trust you because THEIR friends vouch for you ») 15/

« according to an anonymous source… », « a study shows… » or “experts say” don’t fit either model. These now raise suspicion, not trust /Fin

Differences between today and yesterday: 1. We know many more people (internet makes this possible). Would you and I be exchanging int'l phone calls or letters 30 years ago? Doubt it.

2. In lieu of arbiters of trust (P&G, sold at walmart, ABC/CBS/NBC, NYT), we know how have trust markets (twitter, trustpilot, amazon reviews) with trust metrics.

Good point. Important difference is that people have control on their trust markets (at least they choose which market they decide to trust) whereas arbiters were imposed on them. This in turn forces trust markets to behave in such ways as to deserve that trust.

Yes, today I can decide between google reviews or yelp for a restaurant review, but I think this type of business' endgame is a network effect monopoly, so in the future, the choice will be imposed on me.

After a single trust platform hits that critical mass and overtakes its competitors, it's unclear whether regulation or market forces are the determinants of trust market behavior. Fwiw, I think Google will do that to Yelp in the U.S. (search and maps too powerful).

Dunno. I would not be surprised if the future was heavily fragmented. My trust requirements are different for purchasing shoelaces or for political news. My intuition is that a personal connection of some sort will be central for important stuff. Tech enables this at scale.