Comments by "Plato\x27s Cave alum" (@platoscavealum902) on "The Hill"
channel.
-
Today, the impact of social media on broad aspects of our society reminds me of the Protestant Reformation — which was enabled by the modern technology of the day — the printing press.
What I mean is that majority of Catholics, historically speaking, for a long time — did not know precisely what the Bible actually said because Bibles were expensive and written in Latin. All they knew about the Bible is what the church authorities told them was in the Bible. Because fewer people were involved in the interpretation of the Bible — there was a lot of (false) consensus about how the Bible instructed people to live.
However, as the Bible became more affordable, and more importantly — it was printed in a language that many common laypeople could understand — the fabric of society started to fray at the edges. You would think it would be the opposite — since it seems like there’s no way that the ability to read the Bible would lead to bloodshed and war — but that is exactly what happened.
The reason for this historical upheaval, in my opinion, is that suddenly people were able to decide for themselves what the Bible was trying to teach them. Suddenly, instead of a (false) consensus — there were many, many different interpretations of the ambiguous passages from the Bible. This greatly divided society as many different teachings appealed to many different people. And, of course, everyone thought that their interpretation of the Bible was the ultimate truth. In other words, society became far more splintered because there was far less consensus (due to divergent teachings) and people were incentivized to only listen to people who were like-minded and part of their 'tribe.'
Currently, tribal (partisan) behavior is broadly enabled and encouraged by social media. Today, there’s almost no topic or position on which the social media can’t find a group of like-minded individuals for one to be a part of. Once part of a tribe, tribal war of words ensues. And, of course, everyone thinks their group is the one who is correct on all of the issues.
No doubt there were disagreements before. However, before the internet, there were relatively few places for an average working person to get their news. Those older (pre-internet) outlets for news and information (such as the few television stations, before cable TV) were like the priests or the noble class of the past — for the most part — they were the few gatekeepers of information. As such, there used to be more of a (false) consensus about a given topic because relatively few people (mostly with similar incentives) were involved. (My understanding is that it used to be a little easier to discuss or debate the news of the day because at least most people saw similar coverage of a given topic. Now, news, especially on social media — are largely curated to confirm one’s pre-existing biases — because on average, that is what people enjoy, they come back for more, profits follow.) In the past, fringe content and news had a very hard time surviving because it was not nearly as easy to find enough of an audience to turn it in to a viable business. Today however, technology makes it extremely easy to match the fringiest of content to the people who can’t get enough of it — helping make a variety of 'fringe' or uncommon content a worthwhile business.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that on a (more local) provincial level — things used to be relatively calm as long as the gatekeepers were in charge of information for the 'unwashed' masses. Given this, things were status-quo and there was a (false, artificial) consensus about how things ought to be done, what is right and wrong, what is good and what is evil. ...To me, it is surprising, unexpected, and seemingly paradoxical that the liberty to access more information, along with the ability to find many more like-minded individuals — can lead to turmoil, division, partisanship, and tribalism — not peace!
I’m not sure how to ameliorate the problems above. I do think that teaching critical thinking, including behavioral economics (perhaps in high school) would be very helpful. (I didn’t have the slightest clue about critical thinking even after graduating from high school. I suspect this may still be common.)
...I’m not convinced that banning unwanted information gets rid of it permanently — similar to how the Catholic Church could never get rid of Protestant ideas once people were able to study the Bible for themselves. Today, once more, rightly or wrongly, people are skeptical of the traditional gatekeepers of information — the main stream media — because there are many more alternatives and some of those alternatives are far more palatable and have far better appeal to one’s previously held beliefs and emotions.
Digital distribution of information (almost free) is doing to society what the printing press previously has done to our society — greatly reducing the cost of obtaining information, helping us be more informed and educated, but also, unfortunately — more divided in our opinions about this new, abundantly available (sometimes misleading) information.
11
-
8
-
7
-
Today, the impact of social media on broad aspects of our society reminds me of the Protestant Reformation — which was enabled by the modern technology of the day — the printing press.
What I mean is that majority of Catholics, historically speaking, for a long time — did not know precisely what the Bible actually said because Bibles were expensive and written in Latin. All they knew about the Bible is what the church authorities told them was in the Bible. Because fewer people were involved in the interpretation of the Bible — there was a lot of (false) consensus about how the Bible instructed people to live.
However, as the Bible became more affordable, and more importantly — it was printed in a language that many common laypeople could understand — the fabric of society started to fray at the edges. You would think it would be the opposite — since it seems like there’s no way that the ability to read the Bible would lead to bloodshed and war — but that is exactly what happened.
The reason for this historical upheaval, in my opinion, is that suddenly people were able to decide for themselves what the Bible was trying to teach them. Suddenly, instead of a (false) consensus — there were many, many different interpretations of the ambiguous passages from the Bible. This greatly divided society as many different teachings appealed to many different people. And, of course, everyone thought that their interpretation of the Bible was the ultimate truth. In other words, society became far more splintered because there was far less consensus (due to divergent teachings) and people were incentivized to only listen to people who were like-minded and part of their 'tribe.'
Currently, tribal (partisan) behavior is broadly enabled and encouraged by social media. Today, there’s almost no topic or position on which the social media can’t find a group of like-minded individuals for one to be a part of. Once part of a tribe, tribal war of words ensues. And, of course, everyone thinks their group is the one who is correct on all of the issues.
No doubt there were disagreements before. However, before the internet, there were relatively few places for an average working person to get their news. Those older (pre-internet) outlets for news and information (such as the few television stations, before cable TV) were like the priests or the noble class of the past — for the most part — they were the few gatekeepers of information. As such, there used to be more of a (false) consensus about a given topic because relatively few people (mostly with similar incentives) were involved. (My understanding is that it used to be a little easier to discuss or debate the news of the day because at least most people saw similar coverage of a given topic. Now, news, especially on social media — are largely curated to confirm one’s pre-existing biases — because on average, that is what people enjoy, they come back for more, profits follow.) In the past, fringe content and news had a very hard time surviving because it was not nearly as easy to find enough of an audience to turn it in to a viable business. Today however, technology makes it extremely easy to match the fringiest of content to the people who can’t get enough of it — helping make a variety of 'fringe' or uncommon content a worthwhile business.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that on a (more local) provincial level — things used to be relatively calm as long as the gatekeepers were in charge of information for the 'unwashed' masses. Given this, things were status-quo and there was a (false, artificial) consensus about how things ought to be done, what is right and wrong, what is good and what is evil. ...To me, it is surprising, unexpected, and seemingly paradoxical that the liberty to access more information, along with the ability to find many more like-minded individuals — can lead to turmoil, division, partisanship, and tribalism — not peace!
I’m not sure how to ameliorate the problems above. I do think that teaching critical thinking, including behavioral economics (perhaps in high school) would be very helpful. (I didn’t have the slightest clue about critical thinking even after graduating from high school. I suspect this may still be common.)
...I’m not convinced that banning unwanted information gets rid of it permanently — similar to how the Catholic Church could never get rid of Protestant ideas once people were able to study the Bible for themselves. Today, once more, rightly or wrongly, people are skeptical of the traditional gatekeepers of information — the main stream media — because there are many more alternatives and some of those alternatives are far more palatable and have far better appeal to one’s previously held beliefs and emotions.
Digital distribution of information (almost free) is doing to society what the printing press previously has done to our society — greatly reducing the cost of obtaining information, helping us be more informed and educated, but also, unfortunately — more divided in our opinions about this new, abundantly available (sometimes misleading) information.
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
tu quoque, whataboutism, ad hominem:
Tu quoque is an informal fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack.
"Whataboutism" is one particularly well known instance of this fallacy:
Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.
🇷🇺 Whataboutism is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often be "What about ..." followed by instancing of an event or situation in the Western world. According to Russian writer and political activist Garry Kasparov, it is a word that was coined to describe the frequent use of a rhetorical diversion by Soviet apologists and dictators, who would counter charges of their oppression, "massacres, gulags, and forced deportations" by invoking American slavery, racism, lynchings, etc.
— source: Wikipedia:
• tu quoque
• whataboutism
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Today, the impact of social media on broad aspects of our society reminds me of the Protestant Reformation — which was enabled by the modern technology of the day — the printing press.
What I mean is that majority of Catholics, historically speaking, for a long time — did not know precisely what the Bible actually said because Bibles were expensive and written in Latin. All they knew about the Bible is what the church authorities told them was in the Bible. Because fewer people were involved in the interpretation of the Bible — there was a lot of (false) consensus about how the Bible instructed people to live.
However, as the Bible became more affordable, and more importantly — it was printed in a language that many common laypeople could understand — the fabric of society started to fray at the edges. You would think it would be the opposite — since it seems like there’s no way that the ability to read the Bible would lead to bloodshed and war — but that is exactly what happened.
The reason for this historical upheaval, in my opinion, is that suddenly people were able to decide for themselves what the Bible was trying to teach them. Suddenly, instead of a (false) consensus — there were many, many different interpretations of the ambiguous passages from the Bible. This greatly divided society as many different teachings appealed to many different people. And, of course, everyone thought that their interpretation of the Bible was the ultimate truth. In other words, society became far more splintered because there was far less consensus (due to divergent teachings) and people were incentivized to only listen to people who were like-minded and part of their 'tribe.'
Currently, tribal (partisan) behavior is broadly enabled and encouraged by social media. Today, there’s almost no topic or position on which the social media can’t find a group of like-minded individuals for one to be a part of. Once part of a tribe, tribal war of words ensues. And, of course, everyone thinks their group is the one who is correct on all of the issues.
No doubt there were disagreements before. However, before the internet, there were relatively few places for an average working person to get their news. Those older (pre-internet) outlets for news and information (such as the few television stations, before cable TV) were like the priests or the noble class of the past — for the most part — they were the few gatekeepers of information. As such, there used to be more of a (false) consensus about a given topic because relatively few people (mostly with similar incentives) were involved. (My understanding is that it used to be a little easier to discuss or debate the news of the day because at least most people saw similar coverage of a given topic. Now, news, especially on social media — are largely curated to confirm one’s pre-existing biases — because on average, that is what people enjoy, they come back for more, profits follow.) In the past, fringe content and news had a very hard time surviving because it was not nearly as easy to find enough of an audience to turn it in to a viable business. Today however, technology makes it extremely easy to match the fringiest of content to the people who can’t get enough of it — helping make a variety of 'fringe' or uncommon content a worthwhile business.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that on a (more local) provincial level — things used to be relatively calm as long as the gatekeepers were in charge of information for the 'unwashed' masses. Given this, things were status-quo and there was a (false, artificial) consensus about how things ought to be done, what is right and wrong, what is good and what is evil. ...To me, it is surprising, unexpected, and seemingly paradoxical that the liberty to access more information, along with the ability to find many more like-minded individuals — can lead to turmoil, division, partisanship, and tribalism — not peace!
I’m not sure how to ameliorate the problems above. I do think that teaching critical thinking, including behavioral economics (perhaps in high school) would be very helpful. (I didn’t have the slightest clue about critical thinking even after graduating from high school. I suspect this may still be common.)
...I’m not convinced that banning unwanted information gets rid of it permanently — similar to how the Catholic Church could never get rid of Protestant ideas once people were able to study the Bible for themselves. Today, once more, rightly or wrongly, people are skeptical of the traditional gatekeepers of information — the main stream media — because there are many more alternatives and some of those alternatives are far more palatable and have far better appeal to one’s previously held beliefs and emotions.
Digital distribution of information (almost free) is doing to society what the printing press previously has done to our society — greatly reducing the cost of obtaining information, helping us be more informed and educated, but also, unfortunately — more divided in our opinions about this new, abundantly available (sometimes misleading) information.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
tu quoque, whataboutism, ad hominem:
Tu quoque is an informal fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack.
"Whataboutism" is one particularly well known instance of this fallacy:
Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.
🇷🇺 Whataboutism is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often be "What about ..." followed by instancing of an event or situation in the Western world. According to Russian writer and political activist Garry Kasparov, it is a word that was coined to describe the frequent use of a rhetorical diversion by Soviet apologists and dictators, who would counter charges of their oppression, "massacres, gulags, and forced deportations" by invoking American slavery, racism, lynchings, etc.
— source: Wikipedia:
• tu quoque
• whataboutism
2
-
2
-
2
-
tu quoque, whataboutism, ad hominem:
Tu quoque is an informal fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack.
"Whataboutism" is one particularly well known instance of this fallacy:
Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.
🇷🇺 Whataboutism is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often be "What about ..." followed by instancing of an event or situation in the Western world. According to Russian writer and political activist Garry Kasparov, it is a word that was coined to describe the frequent use of a rhetorical diversion by Soviet apologists and dictators, who would counter charges of their oppression, "massacres, gulags, and forced deportations" by invoking American slavery, racism, lynchings, etc.
— source: Wikipedia:
• tu quoque
• whataboutism
2
-
Today, the impact of social media on broad aspects of our society reminds me of the Protestant Reformation — which was enabled by the modern technology of the day — the printing press.
What I mean is that majority of Catholics, historically speaking, for a long time — did not know precisely what the Bible actually said because Bibles were expensive and written in Latin. All they knew about the Bible is what the church authorities told them was in the Bible. Because fewer people were involved in the interpretation of the Bible — there was a lot of (false) consensus about how the Bible instructed people to live.
However, as the Bible became more affordable, and more importantly — it was printed in a language that many common laypeople could understand — the fabric of society started to fray at the edges. You would think it would be the opposite — since it seems like there’s no way that the ability to read the Bible would lead to bloodshed and war — but that is exactly what happened.
The reason for this historical upheaval, in my opinion, is that suddenly people were able to decide for themselves what the Bible was trying to teach them. Suddenly, instead of a (false) consensus — there were many, many different interpretations of the ambiguous passages from the Bible. This greatly divided society as many different teachings appealed to many different people. And, of course, everyone thought that their interpretation of the Bible was the ultimate truth. In other words, society became far more splintered because there was far less consensus (due to divergent teachings) and people were incentivized to only listen to people who were like-minded and part of their 'tribe.'
Currently, tribal (partisan) behavior is broadly enabled and encouraged by social media. Today, there’s almost no topic or position on which the social media can’t find a group of like-minded individuals for one to be a part of. Once part of a tribe, tribal war of words ensues. And, of course, everyone thinks their group is the one who is correct on all of the issues.
No doubt there were disagreements before. However, before the internet, there were relatively few places for an average working person to get their news. Those older (pre-internet) outlets for news and information (such as the few television stations, before cable TV) were like the priests or the noble class of the past — for the most part — they were the few gatekeepers of information. As such, there used to be more of a (false) consensus about a given topic because relatively few people (mostly with similar incentives) were involved. (My understanding is that it used to be a little easier to discuss or debate the news of the day because at least most people saw similar coverage of a given topic. Now, news, especially on social media — are largely curated to confirm one’s pre-existing biases — because on average, that is what people enjoy, they come back for more, profits follow.) In the past, fringe content and news had a very hard time surviving because it was not nearly as easy to find enough of an audience to turn it in to a viable business. Today however, technology makes it extremely easy to match the fringiest of content to the people who can’t get enough of it — helping make a variety of 'fringe' or uncommon content a worthwhile business.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that on a (more local) provincial level — things used to be relatively calm as long as the gatekeepers were in charge of information for the 'unwashed' masses. Given this, things were status-quo and there was a (false, artificial) consensus about how things ought to be done, what is right and wrong, what is good and what is evil. ...To me, it is surprising, unexpected, and seemingly paradoxical that the liberty to access more information, along with the ability to find many more like-minded individuals — can lead to turmoil, division, partisanship, and tribalism — not peace!
I’m not sure how to ameliorate the problems above. I do think that teaching critical thinking, including behavioral economics (perhaps in high school) would be very helpful. (I didn’t have the slightest clue about critical thinking even after graduating from high school. I suspect this may still be common.)
...I’m not convinced that banning unwanted information gets rid of it permanently — similar to how the Catholic Church could never get rid of Protestant ideas once people were able to study the Bible for themselves. Today, once more, rightly or wrongly, people are skeptical of the traditional gatekeepers of information — the main stream media — because there are many more alternatives and some of those alternatives are far more palatable and have far better appeal to one’s previously held beliefs and emotions.
Digital distribution of information (almost free) is doing to society what the printing press previously has done to our society — greatly reducing the cost of obtaining information, helping us be more informed and educated, but also, unfortunately — more divided in our opinions about this new, abundantly available (sometimes misleading) information.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Today, the impact of social media on broad aspects of our society reminds me of the Protestant Reformation — which was enabled by the modern technology of the day — the printing press.
What I mean is that majority of Catholics, historically speaking, for a long time — did not know precisely what the Bible actually said because Bibles were expensive and written in Latin. All they knew about the Bible is what the church authorities told them was in the Bible. Because fewer people were involved in the interpretation of the Bible — there was a lot of (false) consensus about how the Bible instructed people to live.
However, as the Bible became more affordable, and more importantly — it was printed in a language that many common laypeople could understand — the fabric of society started to fray at the edges. You would think it would be the opposite — since it seems like there’s no way that the ability to read the Bible would lead to bloodshed and war — but that is exactly what happened.
The reason for this historical upheaval, in my opinion, is that suddenly people were able to decide for themselves what the Bible was trying to teach them. Suddenly, instead of a (false) consensus — there were many, many different interpretations of the ambiguous passages from the Bible. This greatly divided society as many different teachings appealed to many different people. And, of course, everyone thought that their interpretation of the Bible was the ultimate truth. In other words, society became far more splintered because there was far less consensus (due to divergent teachings) and people were incentivized to only listen to people who were like-minded and part of their 'tribe.'
Currently, tribal (partisan) behavior is broadly enabled and encouraged by social media. Today, there’s almost no topic or position on which the social media can’t find a group of like-minded individuals for one to be a part of. Once part of a tribe, tribal war of words ensues. And, of course, everyone thinks their group is the one who is correct on all of the issues.
No doubt there were disagreements before. However, before the internet, there were relatively few places for an average working person to get their news. Those older (pre-internet) outlets for news and information (such as the few television stations, before cable TV) were like the priests or the noble class of the past — for the most part — they were the few gatekeepers of information. As such, there used to be more of a (false) consensus about a given topic because relatively few people (mostly with similar incentives) were involved. (My understanding is that it used to be a little easier to discuss or debate the news of the day because at least most people saw similar coverage of a given topic. Now, news, especially on social media — are largely curated to confirm one’s pre-existing biases — because on average, that is what people enjoy, they come back for more, profits follow.) In the past, fringe content and news had a very hard time surviving because it was not nearly as easy to find enough of an audience to turn it in to a viable business. Today however, technology makes it extremely easy to match the fringiest of content to the people who can’t get enough of it — helping make a variety of 'fringe' or uncommon content a worthwhile business.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that on a (more local) provincial level — things used to be relatively calm as long as the gatekeepers were in charge of information for the 'unwashed' masses. Given this, things were status-quo and there was a (false, artificial) consensus about how things ought to be done, what is right and wrong, what is good and what is evil. ...To me, it is surprising, unexpected, and seemingly paradoxical that the liberty to access more information, along with the ability to find many more like-minded individuals — can lead to turmoil, division, partisanship, and tribalism — not peace!
I’m not sure how to ameliorate the problems above. I do think that teaching critical thinking, including behavioral economics (perhaps in high school) would be very helpful. (I didn’t have the slightest clue about critical thinking even after graduating from high school. I suspect this may still be common.)
...I’m not convinced that banning unwanted information gets rid of it permanently — similar to how the Catholic Church could never get rid of Protestant ideas once people were able to study the Bible for themselves. Today, once more, rightly or wrongly, people are skeptical of the traditional gatekeepers of information — the main stream media — because there are many more alternatives and some of those alternatives are far more palatable and have far better appeal to one’s previously held beliefs and emotions.
Digital distribution of information (almost free) is doing to society what the printing press previously has done to our society — greatly reducing the cost of obtaining information, helping us be more informed and educated, but also, unfortunately — more divided in our opinions about this new, abundantly available (sometimes misleading) information.
2
-
Today, the impact of social media on broad aspects of our society reminds me of the Protestant Reformation — which was enabled by the modern technology of the day — the printing press.
What I mean is that majority of Catholics, historically speaking, for a long time — did not know precisely what the Bible actually said because Bibles were expensive and written in Latin. All they knew about the Bible is what the church authorities told them was in the Bible. Because fewer people were involved in the interpretation of the Bible — there was a lot of (false) consensus about how the Bible instructed people to live.
However, as the Bible became more affordable, and more importantly — it was printed in a language that many common laypeople could understand — the fabric of society started to fray at the edges. You would think it would be the opposite — since it seems like there’s no way that the ability to read the Bible would lead to bloodshed and war — but that is exactly what happened.
The reason for this historical upheaval, in my opinion, is that suddenly people were able to decide for themselves what the Bible was trying to teach them. Suddenly, instead of a (false) consensus — there were many, many different interpretations of the ambiguous passages from the Bible. This greatly divided society as many different teachings appealed to many different people. And, of course, everyone thought that their interpretation of the Bible was the ultimate truth. In other words, society became far more splintered because there was far less consensus (due to divergent teachings) and people were incentivized to only listen to people who were like-minded and part of their 'tribe.'
Currently, tribal (partisan) behavior is broadly enabled and encouraged by social media. Today, there’s almost no topic or position on which the social media can’t find a group of like-minded individuals for one to be a part of. Once part of a tribe, tribal war of words ensues. And, of course, everyone thinks their group is the one who is correct on all of the issues.
No doubt there were disagreements before. However, before the internet, there were relatively few places for an average working person to get their news. Those older (pre-internet) outlets for news and information (such as the few television stations, before cable TV) were like the priests or the noble class of the past — for the most part — they were the few gatekeepers of information. As such, there used to be more of a (false) consensus about a given topic because relatively few people (mostly with similar incentives) were involved. (My understanding is that it used to be a little easier to discuss or debate the news of the day because at least most people saw similar coverage of a given topic. Now, news, especially on social media — are largely curated to confirm one’s pre-existing biases — because on average, that is what people enjoy, they come back for more, profits follow.) In the past, fringe content and news had a very hard time surviving because it was not nearly as easy to find enough of an audience to turn it in to a viable business. Today however, technology makes it extremely easy to match the fringiest of content to the people who can’t get enough of it — helping make a variety of 'fringe' or uncommon content a worthwhile business.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that on a (more local) provincial level — things used to be relatively calm as long as the gatekeepers were in charge of information for the 'unwashed' masses. Given this, things were status-quo and there was a (false, artificial) consensus about how things ought to be done, what is right and wrong, what is good and what is evil. ...To me, it is surprising, unexpected, and seemingly paradoxical that the liberty to access more information, along with the ability to find many more like-minded individuals — can lead to turmoil, division, partisanship, and tribalism — not peace!
I’m not sure how to ameliorate the problems above. I do think that teaching critical thinking, including behavioral economics (perhaps in high school) would be very helpful. (I didn’t have the slightest clue about critical thinking even after graduating from high school. I suspect this may still be common.)
...I’m not convinced that banning unwanted information gets rid of it permanently — similar to how the Catholic Church could never get rid of Protestant ideas once people were able to study the Bible for themselves. Today, once more, rightly or wrongly, people are skeptical of the traditional gatekeepers of information — the main stream media — because there are many more alternatives and some of those alternatives are far more palatable and have far better appeal to one’s previously held beliefs and emotions.
Digital distribution of information (almost free) is doing to society what the printing press previously has done to our society — greatly reducing the cost of obtaining information, helping us be more informed and educated, but also, unfortunately — more divided in our opinions about this new, abundantly available (sometimes misleading) information.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1