4 ms·
> crowd-sourced news seems to be more reliable than news from any one source this may be true in the sense that if you have a lot of news reports it is more li
by saas_co_de 9y ago
> crowd-sourced news seems to be more reliable than news from any one source
this may be true in the sense that if you have a lot of news reports it is more likely that one of them might be accurate but in terms of the average accuracy of a single report I am sure it is much lower.
the current internet information free-for-all seems to me to mostly be pushing people toward a position of not believing in or trusting in anything.
the effect of this is not some kind of enlightened skepticism but that people will believe and accept anything, no matter how bat-shit insane, because they have no criterion for judging the accuracy of information.
- yorwba 9y agoHow does > pushing people toward a position of not believing in or trusting in anything. cause > people will believe and accept anything, no matter how bat-shit insane ? I'd say that both of those are possible extremes of not being able to tell which sources are trustworthy, i.e. some will distrust all sources equally, and some will trust all sources equally. Which extreme someone tends to likely depends on their subject-matter experience. E.g. when I was a child, my parents bought me a time-travel comic (the German series Mosaik) which always had some background information on the epoch. I always enjoyed reading that and trusted the accuracy of their description. When they had an issue on April Fool's, it took my parents a while to convince me that giant tunnel-boring ladybirds on the moon were not real. Nowadays I'm obviously better able to distinguish truth from falsehood, but if I'm just learning about something for the first time, I might easily be taken for a fool again.