3 ms·
The internet was known for the exact opposite: an extremely unreliable source with zero vetting or gate keeping. People used to trust the Encyclopedia Brittanic
by jdsully 6y ago
The internet was known for the exact opposite: an extremely unreliable source with zero vetting or gate keeping. People used to trust the Encyclopedia Brittanica and other published sources were mostly reliable even if mistakes did happen. The wild west of the internet was very scary to most people.
These days we no longer trust institutions to vet information in the same way. Although I see the trend starting to reverse with Facebook and others taking on the role of a traditional publisher with respect to vetting.
- alanfranz 6y agoWhen? The usenet was gold in the 90s. Forums were once working fine - before marketing arrived there. Not always professional information, but mostly genuine people discussing their own experience. There were no real motives to fake, pretend, deceive. Now there are.
- jdsully 6y agoYes, there were lots of well meaning, but ultimately wrong people spreading their opinions. There were very few people spending the effort to vet and otherwise ensure reliability of the information provided, the best you could do was university professor websites. This was in strict contrast to the expectations the public had for published media at the time. Public expectations with respect to publishers is vastly diminished these days. It may be hard to remember a time when it was broadly trusted. Of course there were groups that "knew" this trust was misplaced, but the tide didn't turn in earnest until the Iraq war.