3 ms·

I think the question that needs to be answered before that is "how do you get people to want to be better informed". If that was already true, there never woul

I think the question that needs to be answered before that is "how do you get people to want to be better informed". If that was already true, there never would have been an Enquirer or Weekly World News.

kerkeslager 7y ago
This is a typical capitalist strategy for displacing blame and therefore responsibility: the supply side says they're just putting out what there's a demand for, and blames the demand for their own actions. The truth is, marketing creates demand, and people can't consume content if you don't create it. Ultimately, I'm not looking to blame the supply side, either: certainly there's some blame for the demand side too. In fact, I don't believe blame is a productive thing to do in this situation or most situations. But I am trying to change it from the supply side, because when you try to create change from the demand side, you run into more issues with affecting free choice which makes this and many other problems more intractable. I also think you're wrong about why the Enquirer et al exist: some people take these as just humor and get their information elsewhere, and others want to be informed, but due to bugs in the human brain, think that sources like the Enquirer are good sources of information. Neither of these are "people not wanting to be informed".