Yes, and even if the speaker in question isn't lying at all, s/he'll be telling her/his truth, from his/her perspective - and not expressing any impossible "view from nowhere" kind of ueber-Truth. Which makes the whole issue of "knowing" that we're dealing with even more complex - and the responsibility it'll always involve inestimably greater.Anath wrote: Mmm hmm. And my post above is bringing up the point of: what if you get disinformation from this fictional "speaker" in the pub? So you might be lied to. And never knowing what effect that could have on the "speaker" elsewhere in his or her life, just because You trusted Him/Her. The "speaker' might get hurt. Or someone else might.
Still, the Internet is one of those media which as if by definition allow for, facilitate and encourage irresponsibility. The consequences are seen as absent, "virtual", never obliging or so distant that they couldn't be really underestimated. They're "there", not "here"; potential, not actual; never altogether "real". And who's supposed to be responsible for them? Who is responsible for these very words - the wooly, scarf-wearing squid going by the name of Squishy, the cat-stroking, mug-wielding human being in front of the screen, or something - somebody - still different?
I don't think the differences between pub meetings and net meetings can be easily relativized away; the scope and intensity of manipulation or distortion of any conveyed "truth" might be seen as the same, of course, but if the linguistic and behavioral conventions differ - and differ they do - I'd say it would be much safer if we wouldn't equalize the series of tubes encounters and "real life" ones here.