3 ms·

Unfortunately, unfiltered also means more "undistilled". The flipside of removal of filters of news on social media, is that we get a lot more low quality news

Unfortunately, unfiltered also means more "undistilled". The flipside of removal of filters of news on social media, is that we get a lot more low quality news based on unchecked facts. It is bad enough that the established media posts "breaking news" as fast as possible without taking the time to thoroughly consider the facts or give us a complete and rounded story. Everything is becoming "headline news". We get more and more during the day, and we don't have the same time to digest what we get, so we just look at the headlines, skip the reports we don't like, and skim the few that look interesting -- The echo chamber. We still need high quality sources that are trustworthy and able to filter out some of the "noise", simplify the stories to something we can digest without loosing details, and we also need to be exposed to news we don't like. News on social media is sensationlist and usually none of those things. In a world of more noise, more echo, fewer facts, and less details, we decide more based on gut feelings. I think some of Trump's result could be attributed to the fact that, he spoke more to the heart of people than Hillary did. E.g. the coal miners who voted for Trump because he promised them their jobs back. At least I think, it will difficult to return coal to its former "glory" with the current energy landscape (e.g. cheap and plenty oil as well as cheaper alternatives), so I am doubtful that will happen. The whole idea of making America great again, returning jobs, and repealing trade agreements and Obama Care, speaks primarily to the heart of the people. We all love the good old times -- Especially, when we feel down and out of luck and life is difficult.

msravi 10y ago
I think you're underestimating the intelligence of people. We like to think that we're much better than the average Joe at separating the wheat from the chaff, but the truth is that the average Joe just isn't so bad at it either - or at least, isn't much worse than an editor sitting in his echo chamber. If I look at my twitter feed now, for example, I have a bunch of tweets criticizing a new decision of the government to withdraw high-denomination currencies (I'm from India), and for every such tweet there are others that are calling out the fallacies of the argument put forth. And vice versa. Gives me all the viewpoints I need to form an opinion.
- joakleaf 10y ago
  I don't underestimate our intelligence, but I think most of us have too little time to do the due diligence ourselves. I am not saying you should trust one traditional media source, but I hope that unfiltered social media never fully replace traditional media. For me Twitter is just hopelessly noisy compared to a well written and nuanced newspaper article that presents me with most of the facts, opinions, potential consequences, graphs, etc. involved with a topic. The sad thing is that most news in traditional media is not well-written, well-researched, or nuanced.
hga 10y ago
E.g. the coal miners who voted for Trump because he promised them their jobs back. At least I think, it will difficult to return coal to its former "glory" with the current energy landscape (e.g. cheap and plenty oil as well as cheaper alternatives), so I am doubtful that will happen. It can at least partially happen. The Democrats have waged absolute total war on the coal industry, something Hillary explicitly confirmed during the campaign, and you don't have to dial that back much to have some good effects, the biggest issue will be the power plants that have converted to natural gas and can't easily go back (and, boy, was that a bad national decision, making us much more fragile, even if coal is truly nasty stuff).

msravi 10y ago

I think you're underestimating the intelligence of people. We like to think that we're much better than the average Joe at separating the wheat from the chaff, but the truth is that the average Joe just isn't so bad at it either - or at least, isn't much worse than an editor sitting in his echo chamber. If I look at my twitter feed now, for example, I have a bunch of tweets criticizing a new decision of the government to withdraw high-denomination currencies (I'm from India), and for every such tweet there are others that are calling out the fallacies of the argument put forth. And vice versa. Gives me all the viewpoints I need to form an opinion.

joakleaf 10y ago
I don't underestimate our intelligence, but I think most of us have too little time to do the due diligence ourselves. I am not saying you should trust one traditional media source, but I hope that unfiltered social media never fully replace traditional media. For me Twitter is just hopelessly noisy compared to a well written and nuanced newspaper article that presents me with most of the facts, opinions, potential consequences, graphs, etc. involved with a topic. The sad thing is that most news in traditional media is not well-written, well-researched, or nuanced.

hga 10y ago

E.g. the coal miners who voted for Trump because he promised them their jobs back. At least I think, it will difficult to return coal to its former "glory" with the current energy landscape (e.g. cheap and plenty oil as well as cheaper alternatives), so I am doubtful that will happen. It can at least partially happen. The Democrats have waged absolute total war on the coal industry, something Hillary explicitly confirmed during the campaign, and you don't have to dial that back much to have some good effects, the biggest issue will be the power plants that have converted to natural gas and can't easily go back (and, boy, was that a bad national decision, making us much more fragile, even if coal is truly nasty stuff).