4 ms·

>In the digital age, the influence and reach of these important intermediate groups has been decimated I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Those intermediate org

>In the digital age, the influence and reach of these important intermediate groups has been decimated I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Those intermediate organizations have been biased in the past and seem to have become increasingly biased to the point of becoming useless for those that want to focus on facts rather than opinion & commentary. We know that widely available information is generally good for democracy. This could actually be a step in the right direction, but there is some adaptation that society has to undergo in order to efficiently filter the new influx of information. Whereas before there was inherent trust of published info, I think a general skepticism over new information is likely to develop.

untog 8y ago
I hear this reasoning regularly, and I'm still not convinced of it. I don't necessarily think the old way was "good", but the "least bad" workable solution. Centralised media and so on do have inherent biases, but they are also held accountable when they publish incorrect information. The problem we have today is not that information is widely available, but that disinformation is widely available and all but impossible to distinguish from real information. We're seeing time and time again, in elections across the world, that false propaganda spread virally through social media is having a meaningful effect on the way people vote. I, too, would love to imagine that a "general skepticism over new information" will develop, but we're not seeing any signs of that. If anything it's the opposite.
- aeternus 8y ago
  Those 'intermediate' media companies can be purchased. Who exactly is holding them accountable and to what? I'd argue that both Fox News & MS NBC are biased to the point of being useless for informational purposes and objective thought. I also wonder how much of this 'fake news' people actually believe vs. using it as justification for their existing beliefs & non-rational biases. Globalization, LGBT rights, open trade, open borders, etc. have happened relatively quickly and people resist change.
  - untog 8y ago
    > Those 'intermediate' media companies can be purchased. They can, yes. But we know who purchases them, and can make educated guesses towards the intent behind buying such a thing. For instance, the mass purchase by Sinclair of local TV stations in the US. We couldn't stop that from happening, but it meant that when there was a sharp shift in the news coverage those channels provided, we knew why. > I'd argue that both Fox News & MS NBC are biased to the point of being useless for informational purposes and objective thought. I'm not going to argue with that- like I said, the current system isn't perfect. But the likes of the NYT, BBC, WaPo, WSJ etc. do issue corrections on stories, and are held accountable, broadly, by each other and the public at large, because what they publish is public and known. By contrast, the new world we find ourselves in where posts can be advertised to specific audiences isn't public - not really - so there can't be any accountability at all.
ska 8y ago
Those intermediate organizations have been biased in the past and seem to have become increasingly biased to the point of becoming useless for those that want to focus on facts rather than opinion & commentary. I'm not convinced that is true, but even if it were the important question isn't "are they biased?" but "are we replacing it with something worse?". So far, the latter seems plausible. Developing a general skepticism isn't a bad thing in and of itself, so long as it is tempered by the real goal which is to have a reliable mechanism for evaluating and accepting new information. We know that widely available information is generally good for democracy. This is only true if the information is correct, and quite the opposite if we are talking propaganda etc.
- rewgs 8y ago
  Thank you, absolutely agree. Everytime I hear someone say that supposed "liberal" institutions are "biased," I genuinely struggle to come up with an answer to the question "biased towards what?" other than "objective reality."
  - aeternus 8y ago
    How about this idea of "safe spaces"? And also the idea that it is generally okay to attempt to shut down, yell over, or ban speech or ideas that they don't agree with. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/safe-spaces-college-intolerant_us_58d957a6e4b02a2eaab66ccf https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/safe-spaces-college-int...
- carry_bit 8y ago
  > This is only true if the information is correct, and quite the opposite if we are talking propaganda etc. But the best propaganda is true, or at least points to the truth. Does that mean some truths being widely know are bad for democracy?
  - ska 8y ago
    That is not what propaganda means. By its very nature it [tends to be] misleading. By all means clear communication of facts is beneficial for democracy. But that is not what propaganda is. [edit: dragonwriter pointed out it is not strictly necessary for it to be misleading - this is true and not what I meant to suggest. In practice nearly always is misleading. It's purpose is to manipulate, which is always detrimental to democracy imo]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rtkwe 8y ago
I think the biggest issue is just that, we've seen a huge increase in people and groups' ability to have their voice heard without a commensurate increase in the ability and willingness to evaluate those voices filter out bad information/voices. Without the mechanisms at the personal levels to filter out the voice just yelling nonsense for their own gain increased information isn't good it's actively detrimental. This is because people don't have an infinite capacity to consume information and evaluate it against everything else so we wind up in a bunch of smaller communities where the individuals are getting a full helping of information but it can be completely skewed and distorted. At least in the old more monolithic days there was a more common set of facts people were working from where today it seems more and more I'm arguing the basic facts about the state of $ISSUE rather than the merits of one approach to it or the other.

untog 8y ago

I hear this reasoning regularly, and I'm still not convinced of it. I don't necessarily think the old way was "good", but the "least bad" workable solution. Centralised media and so on do have inherent biases, but they are also held accountable when they publish incorrect information. The problem we have today is not that information is widely available, but that disinformation is widely available and all but impossible to distinguish from real information. We're seeing time and time again, in elections across the world, that false propaganda spread virally through social media is having a meaningful effect on the way people vote. I, too, would love to imagine that a "general skepticism over new information" will develop, but we're not seeing any signs of that. If anything it's the opposite.

aeternus 8y ago
Those 'intermediate' media companies can be purchased. Who exactly is holding them accountable and to what? I'd argue that both Fox News & MS NBC are biased to the point of being useless for informational purposes and objective thought. I also wonder how much of this 'fake news' people actually believe vs. using it as justification for their existing beliefs & non-rational biases. Globalization, LGBT rights, open trade, open borders, etc. have happened relatively quickly and people resist change.
- untog 8y ago
  > Those 'intermediate' media companies can be purchased. They can, yes. But we know who purchases them, and can make educated guesses towards the intent behind buying such a thing. For instance, the mass purchase by Sinclair of local TV stations in the US. We couldn't stop that from happening, but it meant that when there was a sharp shift in the news coverage those channels provided, we knew why. > I'd argue that both Fox News & MS NBC are biased to the point of being useless for informational purposes and objective thought. I'm not going to argue with that- like I said, the current system isn't perfect. But the likes of the NYT, BBC, WaPo, WSJ etc. do issue corrections on stories, and are held accountable, broadly, by each other and the public at large, because what they publish is public and known. By contrast, the new world we find ourselves in where posts can be advertised to specific audiences isn't public - not really - so there can't be any accountability at all.

ska 8y ago

Those intermediate organizations have been biased in the past and seem to have become increasingly biased to the point of becoming useless for those that want to focus on facts rather than opinion & commentary. I'm not convinced that is true, but even if it were the important question isn't "are they biased?" but "are we replacing it with something worse?". So far, the latter seems plausible. Developing a general skepticism isn't a bad thing in and of itself, so long as it is tempered by the real goal which is to have a reliable mechanism for evaluating and accepting new information. We know that widely available information is generally good for democracy. This is only true if the information is correct, and quite the opposite if we are talking propaganda etc.

rewgs 8y ago
Thank you, absolutely agree. Everytime I hear someone say that supposed "liberal" institutions are "biased," I genuinely struggle to come up with an answer to the question "biased towards what?" other than "objective reality."
- aeternus 8y ago
  How about this idea of "safe spaces"? And also the idea that it is generally okay to attempt to shut down, yell over, or ban speech or ideas that they don't agree with. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/safe-spaces-college-intolerant_us_58d957a6e4b02a2eaab66ccf https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/safe-spaces-college-int...
carry_bit 8y ago
> This is only true if the information is correct, and quite the opposite if we are talking propaganda etc. But the best propaganda is true, or at least points to the truth. Does that mean some truths being widely know are bad for democracy?
- ska 8y ago
  That is not what propaganda means. By its very nature it [tends to be] misleading. By all means clear communication of facts is beneficial for democracy. But that is not what propaganda is. [edit: dragonwriter pointed out it is not strictly necessary for it to be misleading - this is true and not what I meant to suggest. In practice nearly always is misleading. It's purpose is to manipulate, which is always detrimental to democracy imo]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

rtkwe 8y ago

I think the biggest issue is just that, we've seen a huge increase in people and groups' ability to have their voice heard without a commensurate increase in the ability and willingness to evaluate those voices filter out bad information/voices. Without the mechanisms at the personal levels to filter out the voice just yelling nonsense for their own gain increased information isn't good it's actively detrimental. This is because people don't have an infinite capacity to consume information and evaluate it against everything else so we wind up in a bunch of smaller communities where the individuals are getting a full helping of information but it can be completely skewed and distorted. At least in the old more monolithic days there was a more common set of facts people were working from where today it seems more and more I'm arguing the basic facts about the state of $ISSUE rather than the merits of one approach to it or the other.