the existence of wrong information doesn’t negate the existence of good information on the same medium.
When there are no proper ways to sift through and structure that information, it kind of does, but your point overall is still not wrong, just this part I think misses part of the picture.
people just don’t want to put in any work and want to blame something other than themselves.
Yes, although I dare say that it is not as simple as saying “just do better” and “putting work in” - when there’s a massive amount of work and resources put into getting people de-facto addicted to primarily ad-driven engagement with mostly garbage information.
case in point: maga–how many of us have been outright shouting that trump is a conman, and here’s the literal proof–the information, which is good, is right there. and yet people still choose to death threaten dr. fauci because they “don’t like” the good information.
That, however, very much stands. The original vision really, really thought that truth and quality would win out in a “marketplace of ideas”. However, narcissistic appeasement and a combination of humiliating and then making people feel powerful by proxy wins out, especially considering there is no guiding consensus.
Availability to information is important, and that includes making it possible to sift through the mountains of nonsense, including teaching how to spot nonsense. But on top of that, it requires a solid foundation for society, and a consensus to direct what is true and what not (science, functioning professional journalism, etc.) Otherwise, when there is no consensus guiding towards (but not setting completely in stone) “truth”, it will always be whatever is emotionally convenient from individual to individual - and the dynamics of the system will favour information that both panders to narcissistic self-affirmation (not necessarily positive emotions), as well as beating you down in a way that you crave those from your ego being made fragile to begin with.
Yes, although I dare say that it is not as simple as saying “just do better” and “putting work in” - when there’s a massive amount of work and resources put into getting people de-facto addicted to primarily ad-driven engagement with mostly garbage information.
true, nothing can be that simple. it boils down to education imo, where people should be learning, beginning in childhood, how to make good decisions about what information can be considered plausible, and what is more likely to be agenda-driven propaganda. but as you said, we have to deal with a large and powerful group of puppetmasters who don’t want people questioning what they’re told and cutting the strings that make them work and toil day in and out because that could lead to people deciding to not produce X value while getting compensated with some ten thousandth of a percentage of X
When there are no proper ways to sift through and structure that information, it kind of does, but your point overall is still not wrong, just this part I think misses part of the picture.
Yes, although I dare say that it is not as simple as saying “just do better” and “putting work in” - when there’s a massive amount of work and resources put into getting people de-facto addicted to primarily ad-driven engagement with mostly garbage information.
That, however, very much stands. The original vision really, really thought that truth and quality would win out in a “marketplace of ideas”. However, narcissistic appeasement and a combination of humiliating and then making people feel powerful by proxy wins out, especially considering there is no guiding consensus.
Availability to information is important, and that includes making it possible to sift through the mountains of nonsense, including teaching how to spot nonsense. But on top of that, it requires a solid foundation for society, and a consensus to direct what is true and what not (science, functioning professional journalism, etc.) Otherwise, when there is no consensus guiding towards (but not setting completely in stone) “truth”, it will always be whatever is emotionally convenient from individual to individual - and the dynamics of the system will favour information that both panders to narcissistic self-affirmation (not necessarily positive emotions), as well as beating you down in a way that you crave those from your ego being made fragile to begin with.
true, nothing can be that simple. it boils down to education imo, where people should be learning, beginning in childhood, how to make good decisions about what information can be considered plausible, and what is more likely to be agenda-driven propaganda. but as you said, we have to deal with a large and powerful group of puppetmasters who don’t want people questioning what they’re told and cutting the strings that make them work and toil day in and out because that could lead to people deciding to not produce X value while getting compensated with some ten thousandth of a percentage of X