> Your post is based on the hypothesis that more information is better. We've done the experiment, and it's false. No, it's based on the hypothesis that suffic

> Your post is based on the hypothesis that more information is better. We've done the experiment, and it's false. No, it's based on the hypothesis that sufficient up-to-date information is required. > People's perspectives are not deepened by more information, but made more shallow. In large part this is because the information they get is mostly second order, information about other people's reactions, or even reactions to reactions. This reaction information is used to preempt and override people's own reactions, often with something extreme, which drives engagement, which represents value for the corporation. That's a twisted cartoon of the news. If that's how you've actually experienced it, you probably need to pick better sources or get better at separating the wheat from the chaff. > The modern "news" environment takes the worst of our justice system, the unethical, dishonest, manipulative lawyers who consider it their duty to use every rhetorical tool to achieve their goals, and has mainstreamed it. The news, and politics, are dominated by attorneys. But most of us aren't, and most of us don't use those same techniques in our lives, or are even familiar with the techniques, and so we're left vulnerable to them. That's another twisted cartoon, but I'll say one of the best ways to avoid being manipulated is to actually be familiar with the facts.