"I Don't Believe You": Identity, Evidence and the Right to Doubt.

There is a deceptively simple principle at the heart of many arguments on YouTube: people are entitled to decide what they believe.

If somebody tells me who they are, I am perfectly entitled to believe them. I am equally entitled not to believe them. The mere fact that somebody becomes upset because another person does not accept their claimed identity does not, by itself, transform that claim into established fact.

That distinction becomes particularly important in the strange world of online identities, where people can operate behind usernames, avatars, pseudonyms and anonymous accounts while simultaneously insisting that everybody else accept their claimed identity as unquestionable truth.

The argument can become circular:

“I am this person because I say I am this person.”

But that isn't really evidence. It is simply an assertion.

The Superman Test.

Imagine somebody appearing on YouTube and announcing:

“My name is Superman. I was born Superman. Everybody calls me Superman. Therefore, I am Superman.”

Would we be obliged to accept that statement as factual merely because the person had made it?

Of course not.

We might reasonably ask questions. We might want corroborating evidence. We might want to establish whether the person is actually who they claim to be.

The problem is not necessarily that the person is lying. They might be telling the absolute truth. The problem is that an assertion and evidence are two different things.

This is where the old-fashioned principle of “show me” becomes relevant.

The “Master Mark” Technique.

Years ago, I used to refer to a remarkably simple method of establishing who somebody was as the “Master Mark technique”, after someone known as Master Mark.

The principle was wonderfully uncomplicated:

Get on camera and introduce yourself.

There is obviously much more to formal identity verification than simply appearing on camera. A video can be manipulated, impersonated or taken out of context. Proper verification can require considerably stronger evidence.

Nevertheless, for ordinary online interaction, appearing on camera and demonstrating that you are a real person can provide a useful starting point.

And, importantly, it changes the nature of the claim.

Instead of:

“Trust me because I say so.”

the proposition becomes:

“Here is something you can independently examine.”

That distinction is fundamental.

Belief Is Not a Command.

Nobody possesses a magical entitlement to another person's belief.

I cannot order somebody to believe that I am who I claim to be.

Nor can somebody else order me to believe that they are who they claim to be.

I can listen to their evidence. I can examine it. I can consider corroborating information. I can change my mind.

But the final act of belief belongs to the individual.

This doesn't mean that people should automatically disbelieve everyone online. Quite the opposite. It means that belief should be proportionate to evidence.

We routinely apply this principle everywhere else in life.

• If somebody says they are a doctor, we don't simply have to accept the claim because they announced it.
• If somebody says they own a particular company, evidence can establish whether that is true.
• If somebody claims to have qualifications, those qualifications can potentially be verified.
• If somebody claims to be somebody else entirely, identity can likewise be established through evidence.

The internet does not repeal the basic rules of epistemology.

The Difference Between “I Know” and “I Believe”.

There is another important distinction here.

There is a world of difference between saying:

“I know this person isn't who they claim to be.”

and saying:

“I don't believe this person is who they claim to be.”

The first is a claim of knowledge.

The second is an expression of personal belief or doubt.

That distinction matters enormously.

Someone can quite legitimately say:

“I don't believe you.”

without necessarily claiming:

“I can prove you are lying.”

The burden of evidence becomes particularly important when somebody wants other people to accept a disputed proposition as fact.

What About Emotional Distress?

This is where the discussion becomes more complicated.

Suppose someone says that they are suffering an emotional crisis because another person refuses to believe their claimed identity. That distress should not simply be mocked or dismissed.

A person experiencing a genuine crisis deserves appropriate support. But emotional distress does not settle an empirical question.

Someone becoming extremely upset because I don't believe something does not establish that the thing is true.

Otherwise, we would have an extraordinary system of determining reality:

The more distressed someone becomes when challenged, the more true their claim becomes. That clearly cannot work.

It would mean that emotional intensity could substitute for evidence. It cannot.

And if somebody is genuinely contemplating suicide or threatening to harm themselves because of an argument occurring on YouTube, that is not something that should be treated as merely another weapon in an online dispute. The appropriate response is to step away from the argument and seek immediate real-world support.

A YouTube disagreement should never become a test of whether somebody's life is worth living.

YouTube Is Not a Courtroom.

There is another trap here.

Online communities can gradually develop their own definitions of reality.

One person makes a claim. Another person repeats it. A third person says they have heard it too. Eventually several people are repeating the same proposition.

Suddenly it appears that there is a consensus. But repetition is not verification.

Ten people repeating an unsupported claim do not necessarily provide ten pieces of evidence.

They may simply provide ten repetitions of the same original assertion.

This is one reason anonymous online disputes can become so bizarre. People can end up arguing passionately over questions that could potentially be resolved—or at least clarified—by straightforward evidence.

The Principle of Proportionate Belief.

Perhaps the fairest approach is neither blind belief nor automatic disbelief. It is proportionate belief.

• If the evidence is strong, confidence can be strong.
• If the evidence is weak, confidence should be weak.
• If the evidence is absent, uncertainty is perfectly reasonable.

And if somebody says:

“You must believe me because I insist that it is true,”

the appropriate response may simply be:

“I have heard your assertion. I haven't yet seen sufficient evidence to accept it.”

• That isn't hatred.
• It isn't harassment.
• It isn't necessarily an accusation of dishonesty.
• It is simply scepticism.

The Right to Say “I Don't Believe You”.

Ultimately, this is about something much broader than one particular YouTube personality or disputed identity. It is about the right to maintain an independent judgment.

We should be careful about accusing people of lying when we cannot establish that they are lying. But we should be equally careful about demanding that people accept claims merely because somebody becomes angry, upset or distressed when those claims are questioned.

The internet has created an extraordinary environment in which people can construct identities, communities and entire narratives around themselves. But reality remains stubbornly resistant to declaration.

• Saying something is true does not make it true.
• Repeating something does not make it true.
• Becoming angry about something does not make it true.
• Becoming upset about something does not make it true.
• And demanding that other people believe something does not make it true.

Evidence is what moves a proposition from “you say so” towards “there is good reason to believe so.” And sometimes the most honest answer a person can give is remarkably simple:

“I don't believe you.”

Not because they necessarily know the other person is lying.

Not because they necessarily possess proof of deception.

But because, at that particular moment, the evidence isn't sufficient to persuade them.

And that is a legitimate position to hold.

After all, nobody else can take possession of your mind and dictate what you are required to believe.