> It’s unclear to me how we, as a society, move on from here. I also have an observation. The perceived problem of the mainstream media outlet is "a few unele

> It’s unclear to me how we, as a society, move on from here. I also have an observation. The perceived problem of the mainstream media outlet is "a few unelected corporations that control media distribution", or that the state uses the media to feed propaganda. But it's not like that the problem didn't exist before. In fact, yellow journalism played an important role during the Spanish-American War of 1889 [0], People claimed that William Hearst said in a telegram, "Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war." There is no evidence for the quote, but it showed the massive influence of the media. Later, world War II and the Cold War saw the height of government propaganda. During the rise of the Internet and the social media, many people thought the more decentralized distribution of information can free people from the tyranny of big media and state propaganda. It seemed be to the case during Occupy Movement or Arab Spring, but as soon as the current trend of populism dominates, suddenly, the social media became another evil. Well, I know that major players in politics and media often have much greater leverage on the web and they can do large manipulations, and I agree the conflicts of interest of web giants as public forums, and web as places for viral advertising is also a problem - However, the most popular attack on social media and the web is that "everyone, including many people with malicious intention (including big media and state propaganda) have a chance to control information distribution and push Fake News, outside the reliable mainstream media". And that we need to have a system to restrict and remove Fake News online. So mainstream media is bad because unelected corporations, and the state propaganda controls it, but social media is bad because everyone has control. How do we reconcile this contradiction? My conclusion is, this is pretty bad. But the age before the web is equally bad. letting the mainstream media to monopolize the media outlet is worse, having a system to restrict and remove Fake News online is dangerous if abused, because any system that restricts Fake News is also a system that restricts civil movement. The future society just needs to learn living with it. Everyone needs to be skeptical about the information on the web, the battle against mis/disinformation should be fought with more useful and true information that informs people, not by banning them. And perhaps the society needs learning to cooperate without consensus (the "national consensus" has partially died). And perhaps that the mainstream media outlet should act according to a higher standard. > And on the flip side, if you are a witness with a factual account of events and want to inform others, any attempt will be met with skepticism and, as you mention, “the eyes of tribalism”. I don't know any solution, perhaps we just have to acknowledge the truth is intractable (web is bad, but the media before the web is hardly the truth, anyway), and simply live in doubt forever. I'd rather to live in the world that has a few flat Earthers, anti-vax activists, or conspiracy theorists, that I can learn to ignore, than a world that has The Inquisition. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_Spanish%E2%80%93American_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_Spanish%E2%8...