"Quack" is in the eye of the beholder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge I don't mean t

"Quack" is in the eye of the beholder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge I don't mean to paint a false equivalence between the likes of Icke, and the first person to say "maybe bloodletting isn't helpful". But what does one do about collective/consensus quackery? Even if the consensus of experts is the more solid bet on average, the outliers are consequential, whether it's telling citizens not to wear masks, or invading Iraq for no good reason. > Despite having what are, essentially, television channels? Mu. The new media landscape doesn't map cleanly to the old. For better and for worse, cheap and asynchronous publishing puts us in uncharted territory relative to the "Blue Church" of 20th-century broadcast media: https://medium.com/deep-code/understanding-the-blue-church-e4781b2bd9b5 https://medium.com/deep-code/understanding-the-blue-church-e... (I do find it interesting that InfoWars is now incorporating their pariah status into their branding: they brag that they are the "Most Banned Network in the World". For those on the other side, a banning by the Social Media Giants can serve as an erroneous counter-signal that the bannee should be trusted. Cross-reference with the Streisand Effect, and Orwell's admonition that "journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed".)