3 ms·

The trouble with the internet is that it precipitously lowers the barriers for the dissemination of anyone’s half baked ideas. In the past, being able to wide

The trouble with the internet is that it precipitously lowers the barriers for the dissemination of anyone’s half baked ideas. In the past, being able to widely spread (mis)information was limited by circumstance, access, and most importantly, competence. Incompetent people were self limiting in their ability to spread their typically bad ideas because it was too hard. Now, any semi-literate buffoon with access to twitter or 4chan can reach millions. The competence filter is gone and now irrational ideas can spread like wildfire.

tuatoru 6y ago
I think we're still a few years away from someone figuring out a viable business model for curation, though. (I know I'd pay -- a reasonable amount, I'm poor -- for a service that increases the signal to noise ratio.)
- ipython 6y ago
  It’s Neal Stephenson’s “edit stream”. I thought that was one of the best insights from Fall. See https://www.pcmag.com/news/neal-stephenson-explains-his-vision-of-the-digital-afterlife https://www.pcmag.com/news/neal-stephenson-explains-his-visi...
warent 6y ago
Folklore, rumors, and gossip are all as old as spoken language. Just a few hundred years ago, educated people still thought there were witches and magical monsters. Only the medium for story telling has changed, but now with the added benefit of it being a little easier to fact-check if interested. Things are definitely not worse like you're implying.
- ipython 6y ago
  I think that the dramatically increased speed and volume cannot be so simply dismissed, however. That’s like saying “what’s the big deal with jet planes? We’ve had boats and wagons since forever”. Fact checking in particular is less effective since there is such an incentive to push out high volumes of information as quickly as possible. I take the example of writing a book for publication versus a tweet or blog post. The former requires a vetting process before it even starts, takes months if not years to complete, involves several phases of copy editing and technical review from multiple people, and finally there’s a published book at the end. The latter could be a single person banging on a phone keypad for a few minutes, or it could be a team who have extensively sourced over the course of months to produce a well thought out piece. The trouble is- you as a reader have no idea which is which! I think that we have too much information. It overloads our brains, and so we fall back on our more primitive instincts to cope. That ends up with us simply confirming pre existing biases and giving in to fear and anger. It’s like the thesis in the book “paradox of choice” but applied to information rather than brands of jeans or mayonnaise.
baby 6y ago
Every time I read something saying that it "it used to be harder" or "it used to be easier" or "it used to be"... I'm like no way, history repeats itself for pretty much every aspect of life.
Akronymus 6y ago
> Now, any semi-literate buffoon with access to twitter or 4chan can reach millions. Conversly, anyone literate person can spread their knowledge as well. I personally think that the benefit outweighs the drawback.
- Schiendelman 6y ago
  It’s not working because the outrageous spreads faster than the sane.

tuatoru 6y ago

I think we're still a few years away from someone figuring out a viable business model for curation, though. (I know I'd pay -- a reasonable amount, I'm poor -- for a service that increases the signal to noise ratio.)

ipython 6y ago
It’s Neal Stephenson’s “edit stream”. I thought that was one of the best insights from Fall. See https://www.pcmag.com/news/neal-stephenson-explains-his-vision-of-the-digital-afterlife https://www.pcmag.com/news/neal-stephenson-explains-his-visi...

warent 6y ago

Folklore, rumors, and gossip are all as old as spoken language. Just a few hundred years ago, educated people still thought there were witches and magical monsters. Only the medium for story telling has changed, but now with the added benefit of it being a little easier to fact-check if interested. Things are definitely not worse like you're implying.

ipython 6y ago
I think that the dramatically increased speed and volume cannot be so simply dismissed, however. That’s like saying “what’s the big deal with jet planes? We’ve had boats and wagons since forever”. Fact checking in particular is less effective since there is such an incentive to push out high volumes of information as quickly as possible. I take the example of writing a book for publication versus a tweet or blog post. The former requires a vetting process before it even starts, takes months if not years to complete, involves several phases of copy editing and technical review from multiple people, and finally there’s a published book at the end. The latter could be a single person banging on a phone keypad for a few minutes, or it could be a team who have extensively sourced over the course of months to produce a well thought out piece. The trouble is- you as a reader have no idea which is which! I think that we have too much information. It overloads our brains, and so we fall back on our more primitive instincts to cope. That ends up with us simply confirming pre existing biases and giving in to fear and anger. It’s like the thesis in the book “paradox of choice” but applied to information rather than brands of jeans or mayonnaise.

baby 6y ago

Every time I read something saying that it "it used to be harder" or "it used to be easier" or "it used to be"... I'm like no way, history repeats itself for pretty much every aspect of life.

Akronymus 6y ago

> Now, any semi-literate buffoon with access to twitter or 4chan can reach millions. Conversly, anyone literate person can spread their knowledge as well. I personally think that the benefit outweighs the drawback.

Schiendelman 6y ago
It’s not working because the outrageous spreads faster than the sane.