Nietzsche (1873) argued that truth and falsity were not actually states of reality in nature but only exist as a function of the interpretation that human beings assign to them in communication and that for animals without human intellectual communication, there is no such thing as truth. For that reason, Nietzsche questioned whether it is appropriate to give people moral credit for telling the truth and to consider them immoral for lying. In some respects, I do agree with Nietzsche, but not in any that would justify the way I used to use language to lie. Specifically, I do believe that it is immoral to lie in most situations and that people who lie easily and often are unlikely to be moral in their lives in general. That is because, in principle, the purpose of lying is, in one way or another, to trick other people into doing things they would not do if they knew...

I realized during the 2012 presidential election how immoral lying is, even the passive lying of the type that I used to do, because I listened to politicians saying completely opposite things to different audiences but in ways that allowed them to avoid actually being accused of lying, and some much less successfully than others.
The only way in which I agree with Nietzsche is that lying is not necessarily always wrong in and of itself, such as where the purpose of the lie is to accomplish something good, such as to spare someone emotional pain or to protect a person being hunted by a killer. Today, I am a much more truthful person because I define truth and lies by the purpose of my communication instead of by literal meaning only. That is precisely because I reject Nietzsche's premise that there can be no moral dimension to lying just because truth and falsehood exit only as a function of complex human thought processes and communications.

Reference

Nietzsche, F. (1873). On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense.