>As for what is the answer... I wish I had one. I'm afraid that this problem is only going to get worse. How much worse can it get and how can we quantify that

>As for what is the answer... I wish I had one. I'm afraid that this problem is only going to get worse. How much worse can it get and how can we quantify that? How truthy was the previous media landscape? I'm not sure this is measurable. As a hypothetical, if the basic premises which informed our respective political views or national identities (assuming we subscribe to one) were the product of a well orchestrated propaganda campaign, how would we know? The intended audience of propaganda isn't aware of the deception in the classic sense. This is by design. People believe what they want to, I can accept that much. The phenomenon of misinformation hysteria is a symptom of the fracturing of our collective narrative. The "Flat Earth Club" was a debate society, then an Internet forum. People explored implausible ideas and tested their rhetorical ability. Today flat-earther is a pejorative. It is plainly hysterical, a boogeyman of misinformation. The bounds are not to be tested. Those who rail against the dangers of misinformation are arguably misinformed about the boogeymen they have conjured up out of hysteria. Perhaps a fair appraisal might allow that misinformation has always been with us. The sources and dominance of political players have changed. There is a wider spectrum of information accurate or otherwise. I'm not convinced that this is necessarily dangerous in itself. The danger is in how we interact with those who do not share our personal mythos. Demonizing dissent, misidentifying divergent information as misinformation or as the author suggested, sticking to "trusted sources" all appear to be part of a regressive trend. This is more problematic in my view. The alleged democratization of the Internet, where anyone can publish with no technical ability required, is ushering in an era of walled gardens. Choose any beverage you'd like, Pepsi or Coke. Select any sources you'd like for that Wikipedia article. Just make sure they're establishment sources within our parameters. You can say anything you want, as long as I say it isn't dangerous misinformation. See, the Internet is a free and open place. If you cannot find it in [insert walled garden]'s search, then it must not be. The process creates the illusion of consensus greater than what could be achieved by the dying broadcast media. If the misinformation hysteria has been ginned up to achieve a goal, this is it.